Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[glad rag]

Some "tired" sod's on here today.....................

[spheroid]

And whilst the crabs bicker amongst themselves.....we shall build ships to defend this country. Yippeeeee

[spannersatKL]

Spheroid
Looks like you'll have to wait a while longer .......BBC say service entry delay of 2 years? There was I thinking they wanted 'public works' jobs to fill in for the credit crunch.......should think 2 large floating airports should do the trick.......no......put it back and sack the welders/metal workers! Bloody typical if you ask me!

[Jackonicko]

Off centre,

Thank you.

Elegantly and intelligently done. So much less depressing that "f*ck off and die" or "you're a condescending ****".

[Double Zero]

While I'm slightly surpised by the infantle slanging - I as ex tiny hand in the Sea Harrier 1 & 2 development take Jackonicko's stand on this one -he has the outside perspective, and internal knowledge & contacts to have a worthwhile view.

A few days ago I saw a programme on 'SKY' - obviously recorded some years ago but only out now - where a 'Navy Engineer' said 'the Sea Harrier was obviously not designed by an engineer, it's a nightmare to work on and you even have to take the wing off to get the engine out !"...

Well chum, the wing is only held on by 4 bolts, and my father could organise an engine change in 45 minutes - of course there was then the running up & calibration, first by resident Rolls Royce engineers like Mick Simmonds & Keith Wardle, then Test Pilots like John Farley.

I doubt this berk would be 'glad to see the back of it' if his ship was under attack - though that's never going to happen is it ( C*1981 ).

Rant over, my main point was...

Why am I not shocked to death to hear of delays in building the 2 carriers- both awfully but understandably neccessarily named.

I would have thought something more like the U.S. Marines Carriers might have have been more suitable, while we'll have to wait & see if the JSF works out - even I was staggered to read here the unit price to Norway of £209 million !

My only hope for the project is that Graham Tomlinson is fighting our corner.

I'm not a tactician, but if for some reason I was attacking Norway what would I rather take on, 20+ sorted out Gripens with links, or maybe 5-6 JSF's with downgraded kit ?

I will rant over just one more thing, UK Ltd had a ' three poster ' supersonic VSTOL fighter in full mock up design example at Kingston in the 1980's - it made the JSF look like the Sopwith Camel, and one version had forward swept wings, made of carbon fibre 'trained' to avoid wingtip digression.

Guess who cancelled it - the great margaret thatcher, whose poltical arse had been saved by the Harrier ( and AIM 9L, thanks largely to Test Pilot Taylor Scott - who was later killed serving his country, his family treated despicably, but eventually his widow beat the BAe teams of lawyers ).


Back to the carriers, we need them and aircraft able to operate from them, but I notice other 'poorer' countries are happy to operate ships we deemed fit for scrap or selling on...

There was a huge amount of truth in the Bird & Fortune sketch ( findadable on youtube ) " how many Admirals do we have at the moment ?" - " Oh about 85 " - " and how many warships do we have ? "

- " err, about 25 "...

[Jackonicko]

Double Zero,

Thanks for your support!

I don't know where you got your JSF figures, but while it's an expensive jet, I don't think anyone's predicting £200m + yet......

The Norwegian offer was based on $58.7 m in FY02 dollars (eg about $80-90 m today), which is hopelessly over optimistic, when the USAF's own February 2008 figures suggest an eventual average unit flyaway price of about $83 m, with a post 2013 low of $79 m. They've slid up into the $90 m range since then for the F-35A, with $122 m for the F-35B.

[Princeway]

:rolleyes:Well chum, the wing is only held on by 4 bolts

Well chum, don't you mean six.

[Modern Elmo]

If the aircraft are more than 100 miles off the coast then they will need AAR (based reasonably locally), in which case you could base the ac at the same place as the AAR ac, so no need for a carrier. If the carrier needs to be less than 100 miles off-shore, then it is probably too dangerous to put a 3 Billion pound asset in that position...so why buy it in the first place???



Navy Wants NG X-47B To Demo Aerial Refueling



Dec 8, 2008
By Graham Warwick


Northrop Grumman will modify the second X-47B naval unmanned combat air system demonstrator (UCAS-D) to allow autonomous aerial refuelling (AAR) using both U.S. Navy probe-and-drogue and U.S. Air Force boom-and-receptacle methods.

The U.S. Navy has announced plans to award the company a sole-source contract to support the demonstration of AAR capability by 2013, saying the X-47B is the only carrier-suitable unmanned aircraft capable of the task.

AAR would extend the surveillance and strike reach of a 2020-timeframe naval UCAS (N-UCAS) well beyond that of manned aircraft and allow carriers to engage land targets while staying out of range of anti-ship ballistic missiles.


…

Navy Wants NG X-47B To Demo Aerial Refueling | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/UCAS120808.xml)

[clicker]

As a bystander and also as someone who has not seen any military service I might be talking out of turn but my tuppence worth is that if we are likely to venture, or have already ventured, into affairs requiring aerial support to back up any of our forces that cannot be provided by other safe means then do and do it now.

Like at least one other poster I can't understand that if the pack of idiots running this country want to help people with the "credit crunch" and job preservation then building them will help. I also presume a delay would also increase the unit cost thereby hurting the public purse even more.

If I'm wrong then flame away :E

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Clicker

I also presume a delay would also increase the unit cost thereby hurting the public purse even more.

Yes it would appear like that to you and I, but to the Treasury.....

Modern Elmo

Over ten years ago I read that the US Navy wanted a UAV for support roles like tanking. Now that the carriers have no embarked tanker it must again be a priority. Why didn't the USN take the proven Hawkeye/Greyhound airframe and turn it into a tanker?

Now there has been progress with regards to Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings - see this article: Happy Landings (http://www.newelectronics.co.uk/article/16468/Happy-landings.aspx)

An SRVL landing involves an aircraft executing a ‘rolling landing’ onto the carrier flight deck using air speed to provide wingborne lift to compliment engine thrust. Compared to standard vertical landing, an SRVL recovery allows heavier payloads to be brought back and landed onboard.
However, early studies revealed the F-35B had a critical vulnerability to deck motion for SRVL manoeuvres. As a result, the MOD placed a contract with QinetiQ in 2007 to devise a solution.
The Bedford Array visual landing aid system was designed to ensure pilots make an accurate approach to the deck, by combining inputs from external passive references and information in the pilot’s helmet mounted display to stabilise the approach in rough conditions.
A T4 Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier aircraft flew a total of 39 sorties in the southwest approaches to test the Bedford Array landing system and a total of 67 vertical landings and around 230 SRVL approaches were flown.


Once again, the UK is at the forefront of naval aviation technology. I wonder if there is export potential here? The US Marines and several other Navies will want to operate the F35B at sea and face the same challenges.

[Modern Elmo]

Modern Elmo

Over ten years ago I read that the US Navy wanted a UAV for support roles like tanking.

If you read that Aviation Week piece, it says the the Navy wants to demonstrate air to air refueling of a UCAV-- a carrier-capable UCAV and rather large, with a 62 foot wingspan. I suppose this UCAV could also function as a tanker..

Now that the carriers have no embarked tanker it must again be a priority. Why didn't the USN take the proven Hawkeye/Greyhound airframe and turn it into a tanker?

"Proven" - a euphemism for "old."

The USN has been wishing for years to get a new Common Support Aircraft to do what the Hawkeye/Greyhound and S3 Viking have been doing. I believe that this project remains just talk, at present.

What's happening de facto is that the USN is relying more and more on USAF tankers. I've been waiting to ask Royal Navy carrier enthusiasts, who's going to do their air-to-air refueling? RN F-35B's -> more RAF tankers needed.

Now there has been progress with regards to Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings ...

I have a question about these SRVL landings: If an approach is boltered, will it be possible to roll off the deck and into the air again, or not? ( Waiting for some smartie to tell us, "Oh yeah, off the deck, into the air, and then ... )

[Obi Wan Russell]

"I have a question about these SRVL landings: If an approach is boltered, will it be possible to roll off the deck and into the air again, or not? ( Waiting for some smartie to tell us, "Oh yeah, off the deck, into the air, and then ... ) "

The correct grammar is that an aircraft 'Bolts', at does not 'Bolter'. An aicraft which 'Bolts is referred to as a 'Bolter', not a 'Bolterer'. The term isn't applicable to SRVL as the approach speed is well below that of a conventional landing and in any case there are no arrestor wires to miss anyway.

[LowObservable]

In the case of a SRVL "bolt", the emergency procedure is as follows:

OH :mad:

BANG

SPLASH

GLUG GLUG

And I don't recall any discussion of a "KC-2". I suspect that may be connected with the speed-at-altitude performance of a wing that was designed to loiter rather than going anywhere fast.

[SSSETOWTF]

The bolter question is an interesting one. Why do traditional tailhook aircraft bolter? I believe it's because it's quite challenging to fly the approach at 140ish kts using the 'meatball' as your primary visual landing aid (which gives you angular information of your position relative to the glideslope so, by design, it becomes extremely sensitive to errors the closer you get to it). So when you miss all the wires you need a plan B which is to bolt and try again.

SRVL is totally different. The proposal is to touchdown at a fast taxy speed. Are there any emergencies that happen at a fast taxy speed, either on land or on the deck of a carrier, where the standard procedure is to go flying rather than try to stop? Flying the approach at 40-50ish kts, against a new concept of visual landing aids, in an airplane with some state of the art flight controls may make bolters a thing of the past.

So far SRVL looks extremely promising. We could continue to investigate it and look for solutions to its problems. Or we could throw our hands up and give up because dinosaurs in their armchairs don't get it. But if you listen to dinosaurs we wouldn't have the tank, the airplane, carrier aviation or any number of other rather useful things.

Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Double Zero]

Well as I understand it, the F-35B has only fractional forward nozzle braking ( maybe none if the noseleg is compressed ) so I can imagine that yes, if landing a bit forward on a wet deck, going around may well seem attractive - though I haven't a clue about the spool-up time of such a relatively big engine.

No-one has yet explained to me why, after so much STOVL experience with Harrier, this carefully renamed RSVL was not included from day one.

I am aware nozzle braking in a Harrier is not popular on wet decks, even less so on land due to kicking up ready to eat FOD, but maybe the tractor beam on the 'future' carriers can take care of that.

JackoNicko, I got the figure of $209 million per F-35A to Norway ( high unit cost due to small order, I still can't believe they're not considering the future Gripen - shades of Starfighter ?! ) from either a mention on here or a recent magazine; will try to trawl through the tinsel & PM you.

[NoHoverstop]

Double Zero:

One "day one" the P1127 was a VTOL beast. The undercarriage layout built into the P1127 from the day the engine got a second set of vectoring nozzles meant that a fairly low fraction of the current Harrier's weight is carried (on the deck/ground) by wheels that actually have brakes on them. Thus the braking performance is rather feeble compared to more conventionally arranged aircraft and also the F-35B. So the rather fundamental differences between Harrier and F-35B might mean that not every "truth" about V/STOL aviation as we have come to know it is directly applicable to the future.

That said, more than one Harrier has done a full-stop SRVL when the situation demanded.

[Modern Elmo]

Questions:

These proposed aircraft carriers lack angled deck extensions, correct?

So, in the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY EVENT that a roll-until-you-stop landing attempt fails, the boltering aircraft will have to roll toward the bow. This implies no aircraft on deck ahead, which implies no nearly simultaneous landings and take-offs, correct? Aircraft A will have to land before aircraft A can be positioned in front of one of the jet blast deflectors, which can't be raised until A is clear, correct?

Or does the RN plan to use to some sort of crash barricade, a.k.a. big volleyball net, on these ships? And how far from the stern are the two (?) jet blast deflectors located?

[GreenKnight121]

Here is the current plan of CVF as shown on : Royal Navy (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.32031#)

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/img/navy/ConMediaFile/rnimage.php?mainImage=CVF-LR-Image---3.jpg&width=800


And another artist's view :

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/RN%20cariers/AIRCRAFT-CARRIER-2_hi.jpg

[Double Zero]

NoHoverStop,

we've conversed before on good terms, hope that may continue.

I presume all this talk of JBD's is the conventional U.S.Navy ' C ' version.

I suspect more than one Harrier pilot has played the throttle / nozzles on deck to avoid disaster ( Jerry Pook's description of as an RAF pilot unused to deck handling, having to reverse between parked rows of aircraft made my hair stand on end ) but the best description, naturallly, came from John Farley.

When asked by the late Raymond Baxter -commentator & ex-Spitfire pilot - what were his hairiest moments, John very modestly - compared to some of the things he did - related that during a sales push at the Spanish Navy, he challenged the captain of the small Spanish carrier 'Dedalo' " try to stop me landing on " !

This was in the Bay of Biscay - the Captain, up to the challenge, stopped engines, put her beam on to the sea, then made smoke.

J.F. put the aircraft down without much trouble, but found the deck lashing crews were not too keen to rush up and secure the aircraft down - as he said, " I thougt I'd done my bit " !

He ended up playing the nozzles fore & aft just to keep on deck as the ship rolled, and gather he didn't appreciate it much ( anything like a Hornet etc, even if the ship could handle it, would have been over the side long before then ).

So that's why I'm asking if the F-35B could handle similar conditions...

Modern Elmo,

The parked aircraft on deck & 'big volleyball net' / barrier has been tried extensively, my father's WWII photo albums of Seafires & Hellcats is a tiny illustration of such a systems' 'merits'.

DZ

[Engines]

In discussing SRVLs for F-35B on CVF, one needs to appreciate the profound differences between this idea and trying it with Harriers on CVS (Invincible class).

Harrier can use partial nozzle braking (PNB) to quite good effect at higher landing speeds. The 10 degrees forward thrust, if used correctly, doesn't pose a major FOD issue at prepared bases, but it does make the aircraft lighter on the gear, and that is an issue. The Harrier is a fairly poor braking aircraft, as Nohoverstop correctly points out. Only 50% of the weight is on the main gears that only have a single set of brakes. Add in a wet surface. and the situation gets a lot worse. Directional steering on the Harrier is quite powerful (lots of weight on the front peg) , but it is not all that stable an aircraft directionally.

To get effective wing lift off a Harrier (especially the SHAR) you need around 80 knots plus airspeed. That probably raises the SRVL touchdown speed to around 60/70 knots, with the right wind and ship speed. At these sort of airspeeds, the Harrier is not an easy aircraft to fly, with marginal directional stability and VERY high pilot workloads to stay on a precision approach.

Finally, CVS doesn't have the space (lateral or lengthwise to foot of the ramp) required for SRVL in any normal configuration.

F-35B has a full tricycle gear, and I'd expect around 90% of the weight to be taken by the two main gears. Each leg has a very capable carbon fibre brake set, and a well sized wheel for braking. Finally, the brakes are controlled via dual redundant computer driven braking systems. However, it is not going to be a very effective PNB aircraft - only the rear nozzle can vector forward, meaning not all the thrust can help.

The 'B' has a LOT more wing than a Harrier. Likely SRVL airspeeds should be significantly lower than for a Harrier, reducing touchdown speed to the deck. Finally, CVF has much more space available for SRVLs - the deck area is actually quite close to the size of the USS Forrestal when she first entered service in the 50s.

Finally, the 'B' has a very advanced flight control system that should allow pilots to put it on the proverbial sixpence, reducing deck scatter and allowing touchdown much closer to the stern than for a conventional cat and trap approach. In the same vein, the propulsion system is going to be fairly 'Gucci', and restoring power for a 'bolter' won't necessarily depend on a big engine's spool up time.

Modern Elmo raises a very good point about the CVF deck layout. I've posted before that doing SRVLs axially is, in my view, not a good move as you end up rolling towards other stuff parked on deck, or the bottom of the ski jump, ruling put any bolter. CVF has the space to accommodate axial launches and angled recoveries, which in turn should allow the aircraft to perform a 'bolter' if required. (Note - two different versions were posted by 'GreenKnight 121' - the upper one is closer to the current configuration. Lower one is an old design).

As far as I know, there are no crash barriers on CVF. The JBDs have been shown on a number of pictures, they are there to allow greater use of the deck aft of a launching aircraft. They should raise and lower very quickly (~5 sec), so shouldn't get in the way of deck operations.

SSSETOWTF hits the nail on the head - F-35B SRVLs on to CVF are a totally different animal, and well worth looking at.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

All I can say is I hope the spool up time on that engine is pretty sharp! Brakes fail, no matter how shiny and nice.

Even more important if we only buy about 2 of the jets!

[Navaleye]

One of the problems with running Ark or Illustrious on is that certain bits of them that were only fitted at the last refit need to be removed to complete both CVFs. Invincible has none of these, so I suspect we'll see Ark going one year before QE and Illustrious one year before PoW.

[Rakshasa]

GreenKnight121:

Thats actually one of the Older graphics of CVT and the design has changed somewhat. Lateset release image is this one; (Warning .pdf), Link (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/pdf/Stovl_front.pdf)

[LowObservable]

Engines,

A thoughtful post. One comment: the B has more wing than a Harrier but it also at least 2x as heavy on approach and (relative to the Harrier II) has a faster, thinner wing with smaller flaps. How does that affect lift at low speed?

[Engines]

LO,

The B has LOTS more wing (about 3X) and a lot more flap, as well as a Leading Edge device. It can also use all its control surfaces to get maximum lift at desired speeds, thanks to its integrated control system. (on a Harrier, integration of wing lift, propulsive thrust and attitude is done via pilot skill).

PBA,

If the aircraft lands in a semi jet-borne mode, the propulsion system should already be spooled up - in any case, response of the system has to be fast to provide the vertical hover control required. Don't forget that the Harrier's Pegasus was, for many years, the biggest and most powerful dry engine in any military aircraft, and also has the fastest throttle response - due to brilliant british engineers....same breed of guys now working on JSF.

Best Regards as ever,

Engines

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Thanks for illuminating a fascinating discussion.

Just a small query, I've just read Dave Morgan's excellent ''Hostile Skies'', (obviously) about his F. I. air war.

He actually mention doing ( if i rem correctly ! ) doing the first srvl, but also I believe he also says about being able to use 18 degrees forward nozzle.

Is this specific to the Shar maybe ?



(edit)

Aha ! Thanks John Farley, should have read Engines post more carefully, re; partial nozzle braking

[John Farley]

Is this specific to the Shar maybe ?

No. With all Pegasus variants the nozzles could be rotated to an angle 18.5 deg forward of the hover postion - known in the trade as 'the braking stop'.

[glad rag]

(on a Harrier, integration of wing lift, propulsive thrust and attitude is done via pilot skill).

On the early marks yes, but of course I stand to be corrected.:}

[Navaleye]

Interesting article on CVF here. Can't wait for the airfix version.

here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html)

[Engines]

Glad rag,

What I meant here (sorry for not being clearer) is that control of the propulsion system on Harriers, via the throttle and nozzle control lever, is essentially separated from the aircraft's attitude control via the control column. These three 'inceptors' are managed by the pilot to carry out safe recoveries, at a cost of high workload. Interestingly, recoveries to ships were the drivers for the changes to the Sea Harrier cockpit and also the improved lateral reaction controls, or so I have been told.

F-35B is a totally different animal. The flight control system will automate many of the functions described above and leave the pilot with a much lower workload - this should lead to safer and more accurate recoveries.

JF, thank you for the correction on the value of the braking stop.

Best regards

Engines

[Navaleye]

Interesting video on the F-35 on the NG site here. Comments welcome.

Here (http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/assets/eodasvideo.html)

[Biggus]

Navaleye...

In post 2025 you stated that certain 'bits' of the current CVSs are due to go on the new carriers. Can you say what 'bits' you are refering to, or does OPSEC come into it?

If it is the CIWSs, e.g Phalanx and Goalkeeper, doesn't that mean they will be at least 10-15 years old when they go on the new ships? Or will they have been upgraded so often by them they will be like Triggers broom?

[Navaleye]

Biggus,

Doubtless the Phalanx will come off and be upgraded to Block 1b standard. Some of the new comms and navigation equipment fitted to the CVS is slated for CVF.

[Biggus]

Navaleye - thanks!

[LowObservable]

Navaleye -

Ares Homepage (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A41255466-a6f1-419b-8a08-c2e2cb00fbcc)

[LmRaptor]

AW&ST
JSF News 2 - Stealth Questions Raised
Posted by Bill Sweetman at 1/7/2009 7:30 AM CST

The Air Power Australia team have produced an unprecedented report which asserts that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is much less stealthy than the F-22 - and in fact is comparable in radar cross-section (RCS), under some circumstances, to a conventional fighter in clean condition. APA's updated surveys of modern Russian radars - which are most likely to form the basis of the threat systems that it would encounter from the late 2010s onwards - have set the scene for this analysis.

The report is unprecedented because it's the first "civilian" use of radar scattering models to take a first-order look at an aircraft's RCS. It was the development of computer-based RCS models that opened the way to the development of stealth in the 1970s: the theory of scattering was well known but was too hard to apply to a 3-D shape without those tools.

The APA analysis will no doubt be countered by the JSF team in several ways. They'll argue that the APA team has an agenda. They will argue that the analysis is too crude to reflect reality; that anything it does show is not operationally relevant; and that the true picture is much more complex and (of course) secret.

The APA team does have an open agenda (as does the JSF team) but that does not mean that their data is bad.

The analysis is crude insofar as it doesn't make any detailed estimates of the effects of radar absorbent material (RAM). On the other hand, the doctrine laid down by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser still stands: the four most important aspects of stealth are shape, shape, shape and materials.

On the other hand, the APA analysis is a lot more detailed than the cartoon representations in Lockheed Martin briefings. And more realistic than the claims of total invisibility made on JSF's behalf.

The APA team also makes the point that the F-35 doesn't look as much like an F-22 (or the X-35) as you might think. Those two aircraft both reflected a refined version of the F-117 shape - they are basically faceted designs, although they incorporate large radius curves and the lines between facets are smoothed. But the F-35 has acquired some very conventional-airplane-shaped lumps and bumps around its underside, not to mention the hideous wart that covers the gun on the F-35A. It's enough to raise questions.

Of course, it's possible to argue that the F-35 meets its stealth requirements (which may or not be the same for all F-35s), and that it will be stealthy enough to survive - combined with situational awareness and tactics.

But that in turn depends on what the requirements are, and what threats it was designed against. (That's why stealth air vehicles are as diverse as they are, from the DarkStar to the AGM-129, while submarines look pretty much the same.) In the design of the F-22, for example, features such as 2-D nozzles, edges swept at 42 degrees, and high-altitude, high-speed flight were required to address that threat set.

More recently, the Northrop Grumman X-47B and Boeing X-45C designs have clearly been aimed at all-aspect, wideband stealth - although that's particularly important for an unmanned vehicle, which may not be as flexible in its response to a pop-up threat.

The worst argument against APA, though, is that of secrecy. Implemented on an experimental airplane 30 years ago, stealth is no longer covered by Arthur C. Clarke's principle that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Competitors and potential adversaries around the world have assuredly run F-35 models in simulations, in RCS chambers and on open ranges. So if APA has got their models wrong, it probably wouldn't compromise security to explain why.

Assessing JSF Defence Penetration Capabilities (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html)

Thoughts?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

A few more orders (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.14948/changeNav/6568) for CVF this week. Good to see some good news for Appledore (a local yard).

£50m for steelwork for bow sections of the two carriers, to be carried out at Babcock's Appledore Shipyard in Devon, sustaining some 150 jobs at peak production;
Galley equipment, £3.4m, Kempsafe Ltd (Southampton);
Modular cabins and wet spaces, £23m, McGill Services Ltd, sustaining about 40 jobs at peak production (Billingham, County Durham);
Furniture to be installed throughout the ships, £4.4m, McGill Services Ltd;
Windows, £1.3m, Tex Special Projects Ltd (Ipswich);
Doors and hatches, £3.9m, McGeoch Marine Ltd (Inchinnan, Renfrewshire);
Aircraft electrical supplies equipment, £4m, Ultra Electronics PMES (Rugeley, Staffs).

It is coming together, albeit slowly!

[Modern Elmo]

That so-called APA team doesn't know the details of the F-35 design and concept of operation, nor do I think they have any real expertise in state of the art radar performance analysis.

How many military radars does Australia design and build?

..,. More querulous Karlo Kopp Krapp from the Wizards of Oz.

[LowObservable]

Karlo Kopp Krapp

JSF defenders are so, so easily reduced to abuse.

Of course everyone's perspective would be different if they could see the results from full-scale, hi-fi RCS pole testing - which was apparently last performed in 2001 on a model that was five major configuration changes ago.

Hey, it's gonna work. The modelling and simulation say so.

[phil gollin]

Sorry if this has been posted before ;

(I like the editor's comment ; "........... It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager." )



(Source: U.S Department of State; issued January 16, 2009)

WASHINGTON --- Decisions about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and F-22 Raptor aircraft programs are expected early in President-elect Barack Obama's administration.

The F-35 program manager said yesterday he sees strong support for the F-35 from the services, allied partners and, so far, on Capitol Hill.

Based on initial indications and inquiries from Obama's transition team, Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis said he's confident the F-35 program begun during the Clinton administration will continue, even if budget restraints force scale-backs. Davis made the comments here as keynote speaker at a Brookings Institution forum, "The Joint Strike Fighter and Beyond."

"Support throughout what appears to be three administrations has been relatively consistent," he said. "As of yet, we see no reason that that support is going to change. There is nobody on Capitol Hill who has said they want to cancel the Joint Strike Fighter."

That doesn't mean, he acknowledged, that the program to develop the next-generation strike aircraft weapon system for the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and allied countries might not get scaled back.

Davis conceded he gets many questions about the F-35's cost -- expected to be $80 million to $90 million, depending on the variant -- and delivery schedule. And if fewer aircraft are built, each will cost even more. (Emphasis added-Ed.]

"We lose two airplanes in our [fiscal 2009] appropriation, and every other one of the airplanes being bought in that year goes up $3 million," he said.

Another consideration, he said, is the cost of maintaining the aging legacy fleets the F-35 would replace if production is cut.

Earlier yesterday, William Lynn, Obama's deputy defense secretary nominee, told the Senate Armed Services Committee it would be "very difficult" for the Defense Department to keep all its weapons systems development programs on track in tight budget times.

Lynn said at his confirmation hearing he'll push for a speedy Quadrennial Defense Review to set priorities through fiscal 2015, and expects the tactical aviation force modernization issue to play heavily in those considerations.

In written responses submitted to the committee, Lynn recognized the capabilities of both the F-22 and F-35 aircraft -- particularly when considered together.

"The F-22 is the most advanced tactical fighter in the world and, when combined with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, will provide the nation with the most capable mix of fifth-generation aircraft available for the foreseeable future," he said.

The F-22, to replace the legacy F-15 fleet, brings "tremendous capability" and is a critical element of the department's overall tactical aircraft force structure, Lynn said. The F-35, on the other hand, "will provide the foundation for the department's tactical air force structure."

The F-35 is the first aircraft to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, with three variants being developed simultaneously.

It will replace the legacy F-16 aircraft for the Air Force and the F/A-18 and AV-8 aircraft for the Navy and Marine Corps, as well as numerous legacy aircraft for the international partners participating in the F-35 program, Lynn told the Senate committee.

So the big question, he said, is determining the appropriate mix between the two aircraft. "If confirmed, I would expect this to be a key issue for the early strategy and program-budget reviews that the department will conduct over the next few months," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has made no secret of his interest in reaching a decision and moving forward. During a June visit to Langley Air Force Base, Va., he told airmen at Air Combat Command the new administration will have to determine the proper balance between the two aircraft.

"End the debate, make a decision and move on," Gates said. "'Start getting stuff built' is just so important.'"

Gates told the airmen he had allocated enough money to keep the F-22 production lines open so the next administration could make its decision. He did not know at the time that he would be part of that decision-making process.

Davis told the Brooking Institution audience yesterday, "support from all three services has never been stronger" for the F-35 program.

The Marine Corps, slated to receive the "B" variant that has a vertical-lift capability, has been "the most vocal, avid and fervent customer," Davis said. The Marine Corps leadership expects the F-35 to become "the most effective air platform they have ever had," he said. "Looking at their history of how they have used airplanes, that is quite a bold statement."

Similarly, the Navy, to receive the aircraft's "C" variant designed for carrier launches, "has never been more supportive of the program," Davis said. He noted that the Navy has been "fighting aggressively" to keep its aircraft carriers fully outfitted.

In addition, the Air Force recognizes the need for a complementary mix of aircraft to meet its mission requirements, he said. Its "A" variant of the F-35 will provide conventional take-off and landing capabilities.

Meanwhile, nine partner nations continue to support the program, with other countries considering signing on, too, Davis said. The F-35 program represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.

"We believe that the coalition that was put in place when they signed up for this program is probably stronger than ever now," Davis said.

This partnership, he said, brings the concept of coalition integration to a whole new level. In addition to funding and developing the F-35 together, the partners plan to use a single system to sustain it -- sharing spares and repair capabilities to reduce costs.

"There is something very unique that Joint Strike Fighter offers that other programs I have seen do not," he said.

The big challenge for now, Davis said, is to take advantage of the latest manufacturing processes to get the production line moving ahead.

"Even the manufacturing lines for some of our newest fighters, the F-22, started in the late '80s and early '90s," he said. "We have progressed almost two decades in manufacturing technology, but we have never really tried it out on a full-scale program."


(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first official acknowledgement from either the Pentagon or prime contractor Lockheed Martin that JSF unit costs are higher than the $50-$60 million previously admitted. It is vexing that M.G. Davis only acknowledged these higher prices on the eve of leaving his position as JSF program manager.)

http://www.defense-aerosp...client/modele.pl?session= (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=)
dae.44293325.1232411617.MK8Mnn8AAAEAADUfwk4AAAAQ&prod=101452&modele=release

.

[LowObservable]

So everything's just fine. The program director says so, and who would know better? Shut down every other fighter program and keep mailing the checks to JSF.

What could possibly go wrong?

:ugh::mad:

[Modern Elmo]

So everything's just fine.

Well, things are, to a certain extent. It looks like our Half Blood Prince (TM) isn't going to cut back on DoD and NASA spending. Maybe we'll get some increases.

All part of the eek-O-nomic stimulus plan to revitalize America.

Gimme my promotion now.

[Double Zero]

FormerFlake,

there could be some mileage in your idea; during the ( ongoing )restoration of the S.S.Great Britain at Bristol, they held a campaign when one could ' sponsor a plank, ' with a dedication to one's girlfriend etc inscribed on it.

Deck crew posing ' Top Gun ' style coloured shirts with ' Millets ' on the back could make a few quid too...

In reality I did wonder about the £4billion etc for CVF, but as a hundred times that can come out of thin air overnight for bankers ( sp ? ) I'd say we ought to have them.

Do I believe they won't chop them and probably JSF with aforesaid bankers as an excuse ? What do you think ?!

[spheroid]

Sir, The mutual respect the US and UK Armed Forces have for each other has never been stronger. Our shared commitment is clear — we are the two greatest providers of troops to Afghanistan. And UK troops have taken the fight to the enemy — clearing insurgents, disrupting enemy communication and destroying weapons and narcotics. These are not the actions of a country with, as Bronwen Maddox claims, no significant help left to give (Commentary, Jan 23 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5569936.ece)).
I cannot speak on behalf on the Americans. That is better left to them. The US Supreme Commander in Afghanistan stated: “I have no plans for by-passing one of our most trusted partners in the mission.” And the US Corps Commander in Iraq said: “What the Brits have achieved in Basra is incredible. We need to take lessons from their approach.” These statements pour cold water on Bronwen Maddox’s view of a “caustic mood” about the UK’s “slither out of Basra”.
Our political and financial commitment to defending our nation remains resolute. Our defence budget is second only to that of the US and this Government has brought the longest period of growth for 20 years. By the end of 2009 will have spent nearly £14 billion on operations since 2001. This is why we can commit to a new generation of aircraft carriers — the only European country to have done so. Also why we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available.
These are not the signs of a country shrinking from defence, but of one committed to maintaining its military capability and working alongside its closest ally now and in the future.


John Hutton. Letter to the Times 26 Jan 2008.

[Double Zero]

" I am a doughnut " - J.F.K, June 1963

" Leave the gatling guns boys, we won't be needing those " - G.A. Custer

Sorry, those just spring to mind when I see quotes...

[spheroid]

we have increased helicopter flying hours by 60 per cent, will send 700 more protected vehicles to Afghanistan and have given our troops the best body armour available

Is it me or is this statement complete and utter Bo££eaux

[exscribbler]

It's from a politician ergo it's bolleaux.

For "60% additional helo flying hours" read "an extra 20% but we've announced it three times."

For "700 more protected vehicles" read "175 more protected vehicles but we've announced it four times."

For "given our troops the best body armour available" read "I hope to fcuk no stupid bl**dy Royal tries to test it."

Get the picture?

[Double Zero]

Doesn't " we've increased helicopter flying hours by 60% " mean " we've shagged out our pitifully few helicopters " ?

[Cpt_Pugwash]

To get back more onto the Carrier thread, why is all of the attention focussed on the platform and JSF? Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.

Just had a thought, if JSF is Dave, maybe we can call MASC Shirley.:)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Surely MASC is a vital component of the air group and crucial to delivering the overall capability, yet, in spite of the Hawkeye model hanging from the ceiling in Main Building, there is little apparent progress or comment on this element.

Shhh! You are not allowed to mention MASC in the MOD, although it has been discussed here on this thread.:eek: Apparently the ASaCs Sea Kings are meant to keep going until 2018! MASC doesn't have the driving force of an IPT of its own. I don't think funding has been allocated either.:eek:

At least some of the preparations for building the carriers are actuallt taking place - including a lot of work at Rosyth (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/RosythPreparesForRoyalNavySupercarriers.htm).

[Double Zero]

MASC is vital, but might cost more than a bottle of whiskey - therefore ignored.

This is a classic case of the services shooting themselves in the foot by getting a result no matter what crap kit they've got - as long as they keep winning - and getting killed in the process ( hey ho. I have to attend another tedious ceremony at Brize Norton today-).

No politician will sit up and put the money & kit in until we appear to be losing !!!

The services are too good in this respect, to the point of being their own worst enemy - all it takes is some staff level type, serving at the time, to say " No we we can't do that without more resources / kit," be it body armour, warships, vehicles or aircraft - rather than casting an eye on their pensions.

[RumourMonger]

During January in a written answer to a parlimentary question regarding the proposed Out of service dates for the Seaking ASaC Mk 7 the Government indicated that the MoD is “expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022”

Although the way they have been going recently the MoD do not appear to know their backsides from joint in the arm Telling Parliment that the Harrier did not participate in Op Telic

ANy way`s here is the OSD Schedule from the records

Aircraft type/markCurrent planned OSDsCommentsAgusta 109
2009
It is expected these aircraft will be replaced during 2009 by four EC 365N3s
Apache
2030
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030
Chinook Mk2
2015 (2040)
We expect to have to invest further in these aircraft (eg to address obsolescence, meet emerging requirements and extend the planned date of their retirement to 2040) during the next decade, although no investment decisions have yet been made
Chinook Mk2a
2025 (2040)
As above
Gazelle
2012
Where there is an enduring requirement for the capability currently provided by Gazelle we are exploring arrangements based on leased aircraft
Lynx Mk3
2013
It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Surface Combatant Maritime Rotorcraft (SCMR) variant of Future Lynx from 2015
Lynx Mk8
2015
As above
Lynx Mk7
2013
It is expected that these aircraft will be replaced by the Battlefield Reconnaissance Helicopter (BRH) variant of Future Lynx from 2014
Lynx Mk9
2013
As above
Merlin Mk1
2029
We are currently preparing to upgrade these aircraft through the Merlin Mk1 Capability Sustainment Programme
Merlin Mk3
2030
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft (eg to address obsolescence and meet emerging requirements) during the next decade, in order to sustain its service life up to 2030
Merlin Mk3a
2030
As above
Puma
2012 (2022)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of its retirement to 2022, when it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme
Sea King Mk3/3a
2017
It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Sea King Mk4
2012 (2018)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2018, where upon it is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by the Future Medium Helicopter programme
Sea King Mk6c
2010
—
Sea King Mk5
2017
It is expected that the capability provided by these aircraft will be replaced by a joint PFI service with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency
Sea King Mk7
2018 (2022)
We expect to have to invest further in this aircraft to extend the planned date of their retirement to 2022

[glad rag]

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_video_view.php?noeu_id=53&video_id=12&lang=EN

[mick2088]

A MBDA promo of an Aeronavale Rafale dropping a SCALP missile. So?

[glad rag]

Not at all, Mick, lookee a capable twin engined navalised fighter that IS PROVEN on operations, does not cost the earth, and delivers the most modern, accurate, up to date ordnance from a small carrier, why bother with the outlandish JSF £black hole??:ok::ok::ok:

[GreenKnight121]

A 4.5 gen, "low-observable but non-stealthy", non-STOVL land/cat-equipped carrier based fighter.

When the RAF, RN, USMC, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy all want a STOVL 5th gen, stealthy fighter to fly from Non-cat/trap carriers and limited-runway-length land bases (like USMC/RAF Harriers have been doing in Iraq/Afganistan)?

Rafale does not meet the requirements, thus is non-compliant for the contract.

Ho, hum.

[The Helpful Stacker]

GreenKnight121 - You obviously don't work at the MoD then.

Since when has being appropriate for the given/planned task be the driving factor in defence procurement?

No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'.:{

[Barn Doors]

No matter what the requirements you can pretty much guarantee that someone underling at the MoD is thinking how to hammer square peg (a) into round hole (b) driven purely by the mindset of 'cheap'.

That's what the myriad of Staff Officers at the MoD are supposed to do.....look at all possible options. However, they are only that.

Until they start throwing serious money at alternatives such as Rafale then I'm sorry, it's not even a possibility.

I'm with GreenKnight121 on this quite frankly. Why settle for less capability by switching the entire focus from 5th Gen to 4th Gen. 4.5 Gen is just a made up category with the express intention of making the F-18E/F, Typhoon and Rafale crowd feel slightly more special IMHO!

[BillHicksRules]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the various press reports in the US about the expected cancellation of both the F-22 and F-35 programs.

What do those in here feel this means for the HMS Great White Elephant class?

[The Helpful Stacker]

Perhaps they'll take the logical route and stick some catapults on the things instead.

Of course then the government would take the illogical route and probably spend a shedload of money getting BAe to nail an extendable nose oleo, a beefed up tail hook and some sort of camera to the nose so that the poor sod RAF pilot who has to fly the things off and more importantly back onto said white elephant carriers has at least a sporting chance of being able to see where he is going.

[BobHead]

WE Branch

Using that logic we only need two CV's then we need only two Trident replacement SSBN's and can reduce all the navy new builds to Two units per each forecasted operational requirement. With the planned build of units to support and protect one of the two CV's they may build the CV will never be able to leave home waters if faced with anything other than a terrorist threat as the CV and Support Train cannot be protected without landbased A/C cover. I am not sure the Crabs can provide that now let alone in 2020.

WALOB

BobH

[Obi Wan Russell]

F-35 and F-22 aren't going to be cancelled. The latter is reaching the end of the production run, they are already in service! Bit late to talk of cancellation. Too many jobs tied up in the F-35, Obama wouldn't dare cause that much unemployment. Really, gentlemen, you should activate your BS filtersbefore giving credence to such nonsense.:=

[Double Zero]

' Nonsense as in only having 6 type 45's, and selling off our Type 23's in the meantime ?!'

- Let alone having no Fleet Air defence; even selling off our very short range Type 23's - just as the AIM9L could claim to have won the Falklands Air War - and the FRS1 was the only aircraft able to get it there - the AMRAAM & FA2 were the only things able to defend the CBG, a hell of a lot longer range than a Type 45 even if one's available !

So, let's see, Sea Harrier with AMRAAM range 50 miles+ in all weathers, now stuck with GR7/9, effective range 1 mile with a Sidewinder in daylight hours usually.

I worked on the development of the GR 5-7 and Sea Harrier FRS1, FRS/ FA2 ...

[hulahoop7]

Well were getting at least 3...
www.mod.uk (http://www.mod.uk)

[Obi Wan Russell]

I was referring to rumours of the F-35 and F-22 being cancelled. Not going to happen. Whereas the premature withdrawal of the Sea Harriers and the halving of the number of T45s to be built is more akin to treason.

[Double Zero]

'Treason' - a lot of people including me agree with you, and as I've said before the few Type 45's we get will have to be fantastic ships to manage 5-600 knots a la FA2 !

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

BobHead. Well, actually, to retain the current assured deterrence time, we need at least 3 V Boats. That's one in Upkeep (refit)/Maintenance and two to provide overlap at patrol end/start. That leaves no margin for the unforseen/unfortunate, though.

[Double Zero]

And we all know what happens when one leaves no margins, say a '45 hits a mine or just has a plain accident...someone, somewhere is being incredibly stupid, though safe in the knowledge he / she won't be on the receiving end if the **** hits the fan.

Duncan Sandys, Doctor Beeching, who's next ?!

It's times like this when Heinz Frick's 'Skyhook' for Harriers, and the SCADS system for souped up versions of Atlantic Conveyor begin to look very attractive...

[nunquamparatus]

Just as long as we can still play the opening music from 'Top Gun' through the flight deck mag loop system to annoy the chock-heads from the comfort of the briefing room!:E

[BobHead]

GBZ

Thats is why we have four and had four R boats before them. In general naval terms, what ever people may tell you, you need a minimum of three units to have one operational at sea. Four being better. So what are you saying exactly

Bob

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BobHead

Are you saying zero is better than two? The V boats, like the R boats before them, provide one unit at immediate (15 minutes I think) notice, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The planning for CVF doesn't involve this sort of immediate readiness.

Meanwhile, more CVF equipment (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/cvf/cvf-news/future-aircraft-carriers-latest-development/*/changeNav/6568) orders this week.

Tony Graham, head of Capital Ships within MOD's Defence Equipment and Support, attended the signing ceremony at Thales UK and said:

"The Aircraft Carrier Alliance has now placed sub-contracts for almost 40% of the total value of the materials and equipment required to build both ships, and we are pressing ahead into full scale production in the shipyards. The UK's future aircraft carriers are already off the drawing board and becoming a physical reality - the Queen Elizabeth Class."

The Glasgow-based Ticon Ltd UK will supply the insulation systems to be used throughout the ship which will prevent the transfer of noise and heat and protect the ship from the spread of fire.

Thales UK will cover both onboard and fleet-wide communications. Onboard it will ensure that that crew have access to information and are in communication with their colleagues across the ship at all times. The system will use internet networks to transmit data and voice in the same way as modern businesses and offices communicate. Fleet-wide (external to the ship) includes a high frequency system to provide long-range communications between the ship, other vessels and land bases.

The Bradford-based Ormandy Group will deliver equipment for treatment and supply of hot and cold fresh water to the accommodation spaces within the ships.

I am surprised there was no ceremony when the first steel was cut.

[spheroid]

Thales UK will cover both onboard and fleet-wide communications. Onboard it will ensure that that crew have access to information and are in communication with their colleagues across the ship at all times.

Thats a Tannoy and a copy of Daily Orders

Fleet-wide (external to the ship) includes a high frequency system to provide long-range communications between the ship, other vessels and land bases.

Thats an HF Radio

The Bradford-based Ormandy Group will deliver equipment for treatment and supply of hot and cold fresh water to the accommodation spaces within the ships

Those are called pipes and taps.

[Door Slider]

Thales UK will cover both onboard and fleet-wide communications. Onboard it will ensure that that crew have access to information and are in communication with their colleagues across the ship at all times.

Thats a Tannoy and a copy of Daily Orders



Sounds about right, lets get something 'advanced' and keep up to date with technology that will break. How about keeping it simple with something that works and is tried and tested!! Oh not to mention how much more it will cost.

[NURSE]

wonder what the opt out clauses in thease contracts are? Given the budget I would sugest the CVF programme is now very much under threat.

[LFFC]

Hutton to overhaul terror strategy (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090426/tuk-hutton-to-overhaul-terror-strategy-6323e80.html)


Mr Hutton will announce plans on Monday for a "major rebalancing" of the armed forces over the next 10 years, which will give greater priority and investment to special forces units which are able to strike "behind enemy lines".

The new strategy is prompted by a recognition that the old principles of deterrence which dominated military thinking during the Cold War are not applicable to the struggle against extremist terror.

A Defence Review in all but name?

[Pontius Navigator]

It was stated that the carriers and the Typhoon were both in the frame. You could certainly argue that land-based aviation is what will be required for the next few years thus carrier aviation could be slowed down. Equally it could be argued, and of course will be, that Typhoon is the future as both Harrier and Tornado will soon be passed their sell-by dates.

NB, I am talking realistic time scales not a couple or years.

[LFFC]

SAS and other special forces to be expanded to defeat al-Qaeda (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5220803/SAS-and-other-special-forces-to-be-expanded-to-defeat-al-Qaeda.html)

Mr Hutton's speech will also raise the prospect that expensive projects like the RAF's Eurofighter, the final tranche of which has yet to be delivered, and the £3.9bn aircraft carrier programme could be cut back to pay for the wide ranging changes.

[Not_a_boffin]

The references to Typhoon & CVF (note no mention of Dave) would appear to be the jounos pointing at big programmes in the near term. Reading between the lines, if I were mechanised infantry or working on the FRES programme, I'd be even more worried than I should be......

[NURSE]

The need for change emerged from what Mr Hutton will reveal was an "urgent analysis" conducted with Robert Gates, the US defence Secretary, on the lessons learned from fighting in Afghanistan for more than seven years.



And an urgent call from the treasury for huge cuts in the defence budget. Followed by a call from Labour central office telling him how to spin it as expansion of capabilities

[ProM]

Thales UK will cover both onboard and fleet-wide communications.


Only just seen that. Some slight irony really. In the original contract award decision where BAE and Thales competed, and they gave the contract to both of them, guess which area of the design was the only one where the BAE design was judged better. Andthe Thales deisgn therefore rejected

Can you guess?

[Yeller_Gait]

Only just seen that. Some slight irony really. In the original contract award decision where BAE and Thales competed, and they gave the contract to both of them, guess which area of the design was the only one where the BAE design was judged better. Andthe Thales deisgn therefore rejected

Can you guess?

OK, but you don't really expect anyone to be surprised by the answer do you?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

With reference to communications (since CVF will be a command and control platform as well as a platform for aircraft - see:

Island Start for Royal Navy's World-Leading Carrier Comms System (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/cv-class-news/island-start-for-royal-navys-world-leading-carrier-comms-system/*/changeNav/6568)

The launch of HMS Queen Elizabeth - the first of two new aircraft carriers - may be six years away, but work is progressing on a vital part of it deep in the heart of the Isle of Wight. When the vessel puts to sea she will break the mould in many ways, not least in her cost efficiency.

Central to her success - and that of the second carrier HMS Prince of Wales due in service towards the end of the next decade - will be her mission system. The system, which will use 1,740km of fibre optic cable and 14,000 items of equipment, underpins her war-fighting capability. It will support voice and data services needed to effect command and control along with management of aircraft and protection of the ship through sensors and radars.

A forest of radar and communication antennae, around 100 in all, will be grouped on the vessel's aft 'island', one of two superstructures to control ship and air traffic:

"The two carriers will be the most powerful communications platforms the Royal Navy has ever seen," said Commander Simon Petitt, combat system manager for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers. "In fact, by a factor of at least two of all UK vessels that have ever put to sea."

The two-island superstructure - separated by 85m of deck - is a cramped environment for mounting the equipment which includes communications antennae and aerials for radars and other devices such as the precision approach system to enable aircraft to find the ship. In particular, communication systems will be substantial for the carrier so that the ship can stay in contact with its aircraft, other ships in the task group, headquarters and land forces.

[andyy]

The C3I aspect of CV(F) is a very interesting example of "requirement creep". I understand from a former member of the Sub-Navy Board that the original intention was for the ships to be simply floating decks/ hangars with the vast majority of the combat power to be invested in the aircraft. C3I was supposed to be accomplished from the Type 45. The RN also had an aspiration that HMS Ark Royal would be retained in service and converted in to an RN equivalent of the USS Mount Whitney in order to provide a base for a JFHQ (Afloat) under a completely different operational requirement, with its own budget.

Obviously the Ark Royal plan never made it very far but the CV(F) indigenous C3I is a very expensive addition. The RN might have been better off sticking with the original floating airfield plan & buying the extra T45s with the money.

[ProM]

May have made more sense, but that would mean the senior naval officers would fly their flag from a little bitty destroyer rather than a nice big carrier.

No chance

[Not_a_boffin]

Your mate in the Sub NB may be confusing C3I with combat system. There is very little in way of combat system in terms of missile systems,CIWS,EW etc aboard the ship and that part still is "on" T45. However, to make "strike" work, you need access to all sorts of data, which in turn drives comms IER etc. There is very little point shoehorning ISTAR product into a T45 and then having to squirt it across to an accompanying CVF - ditto battlestaff when fitting sufficient space in a size constrained ship, compared to fitting it in something eight times bigger......

[Navaleye]

Good to hear that CVF is making progress. I have read Phoenix Squadron by Rowland White about the Belize operation in the 1970s. Ark managed to put two Buccs over Belize and deter an invasion while the RAF where scratching their backsides wondering how to get there. So much for HNS and all the BS talked about it here and in other places. Required reading.

[andyy]

NaB, my mate is bright enough and experienced enough to understand the difference between C3I systems and combat systems and I have spent enough time writing IERs and trying to squeeze quart sized pints of info down pint sized comms pipes to know how difficult it can be. Nevertheless, that was the plan. All part of the RNs attempt to give the impression of being a Rolls Royce Navy whilst actually using Hyundai/ Daewoo platforms (because that was all that could be afforded).

The idea of a JFHQ(Afloat) in a converted CVS was the recognition that the Battle Staff needed more space & their own extensive Comms suite. It was an attempt to get this capability via an additional project budget.

[Wheaters]

Whilst no decision has been made it seems as though the F35B is the only game in town, for the RN in particular.

It's rather worrying though looking at the potential costs. Project is only slightly behind schedule but costs seem to be rising exponentially. The US will be paying an average of over $100 million for theirs, and the B is significantly more expensive. Initial B examples are looking at close to double that. PW seems to be running a campaign to get the F136 canned as well, the DoD hasn't requested funding for it in the last couple of years.

Oddly F35As were offered to Norway for about $60 million apiece, though the price offered wasn't a binding contract.

Does anyone think our defence budget can afford $120 million dollar airframes?

[Not_a_boffin]

Andyy

In which case it's the JFHQ(A) that's been added. The "strike" element would still need plenty of ISTAR-related product and associated IER. In fact the bloke who wrote the original ST(S) which did include the "strike" element went on to become DACOS(Av) at fleet with specific responsibility for Carrier Strike. He was pretty clear that you couldn't do the "strike" ISTAR from another platform.

I also remember the JFHQ(A) plans and they were also trying to cost bespoke platform designs, never mind CVS conversions. It's JFHQ(A) that has developed requirement creep, not CVF - although to be fair, I'm not sure JFHQ(A) is even an endorsed requirement.

[Modern Elmo]

All part of the RNs attempt to give the impression of being a Rolls Royce Navy whilst actually using Hyundai/ Daewoo platforms

Is RR circa Christian Era 2009 a more profitable or more technologically advanced or more rapidly growing car maker than Hyundai?

[onlywatching]

Hyundai and Daewoo, especially Hyundai, are extremely high quality shipbuilders (and cheap) so I wouldn't take the mickey too much!

[ORAC]

And they still blame the RAF for lying to the politicians.....

Source: Defence Select Committee, Session 1999-00, Tenth Report
Date: 6 July 2000

The Future Carrier and the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf4.htm)

.......A carrier is not a complicated ship, it is basically a big box with a big hangar inside it and a flat deck and a sufficient degree of command and control arrangements to enable the ship to communicate, as it has to. It is not going to have lots of other weapons. It is not full of systems like a destroyer that is stuffed full of the most complicated electronics, etc.. When you go on board a carrier it is basically empty, it is just a box. What is complicated is the aeroplane. I do not want to allow us to create an impression in your minds that the construction of the ship is an immense technological achievement.....

[LFT]

".......A carrier is not a complicated ship, it is basically a big box with a big hangar inside it and a flat deck..."

I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that.

"I do not want to allow us to create an impression in your minds that the construction of the ship is an immense technological achievement..... "

And your qualifications to make that statement are?

[spheroid]

In some respects he is correct. If you have a look around Ocean, Albion and Bulwark..... the design of those ships didn't take much longer than a forenoon....

[LFT]

"In some respects he is correct. If you have a look around Ocean, Albion and Bulwark....."

I have done, and the design and construction of those ships is far more complicated than you (or him) think.

"the design of those ships didn't take much longer than a forenoon...."

And your qualifications to make that statement are?

[onlywatching]

Ocean, Albion and Bulwark were designed to carry Royal Marines and all their swag, which need slightly less ship-borne infrastructure than JCA. Hence those 3 are all relatively simple ships.

[Cpt_Pugwash]

LFT,

"And your qualifications to make that statement are? "Today 07:38
I think you'll find that ORAC was quoting from one of the documents in the link.
The statement was made by the then CDP, you may like to challenge his qualifications.

Unless ORAC was CDP in 2000 .............:ooh:

[Not_a_boffin]

A carrier isn't that complicated compared to a destroyer/frigate. There are a number of challenging areas, like running uptakes/access//stores/magazine lifts past an acceptable hangar arrangement, making sure the aviation ops spaces are in the right place and arranged properly, but in general there is space to do things. There are also some tunes to play in local strength and trade-offs between ship stability and aircraft operations and of course the power required to shift the beast can be a bit interesting to get into the water without shaking the aft end to bits.

A DD/FF on the other hand, has to meet most of the same challenges with far less space but the same variety of spaces to accommodate. Plus it will generally have multiple roles some of which tend to conflict with each other and require more/separate CS elements. A bit tricky to say the least.

CDP was essentially trying to play down the technical risk that some statements at the time were (wrongly) implying. The CVF risk is almost entirely programme (ie political) at this point.

I don't think the LPH/LPD took a forenoon to design either (in fact the LPD detailed design probably took longer than CVF!). Their problems are almost entirely ha'porth of tar induced and slowly being fixed (at a price of course).

[spheroid]

BBC NEWS | UK | Army and Navy clash over ships (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8081969.stm)

We Often refer to this as "willy" waving....i.e. my willy is bigger than yours. It generally occurs in crewrooms and messdecks but not often at this level.

[LowObservable]

Why do I think that this board is the last place where anyone needs a definition of "willy waving"? :E

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Now Dannat's got everyone thinking he's an ace bloke who speaks up for his brownie pack, we might easily forget how dangerous and divisive he is. He's no idiot and must know that the Carriers are Joint assets and intended primarily for expeditionary warfare. This further reinforces my belief that the Army view of "Joint" is Army with access to other Forces budgets.

[phil gollin]

IF properly reported then Dannat has showed that he is incapable of understanding either the MOD budgets decision re. the new carriers (they are for intervention warfare) nor the MOD budget (his "forgetting" that the MOD budget mainly consists of salary and salary related items).

I would be worried if I was a senior army officer that my leader was so incapable of understanding his job.

Maybe he will be stating that only people who learnt how to ride a horse should be promoted to senior positions !


Seriously, this is merely a very poor piece of lobbying by Dannat and he let his rhetoric get carried away (which will mean that the next time he meets his naval colleagues he will be teased mercilessly). But it also shows how successful the MOD has been at setting the service chiefs against each other instead of joining together to make a concerted case for proper funding.

It is worrying just how bad the service chiefs are at strategic thinking.

.

[Wader2]

It is worrying just how bad the service chiefs are at strategic thinking.

When you are up to your *rse in alligators it is difficult to remember to think strategically.

May be Dannat wants to finish this war rather than try and prepare for the next at the same time.

[Navaleye]

100% agree Wader2. Our mandate was to remove Al Queda from Afg. That has been done. We are now fighting the locals in their own country. This is a no-win situation. We should leave. Then the good general won't have to worry about his army being overstretched too much. Also we won't need all this new kit ordered under UORs and we can focus on core defence needs. If the US want to play world policeman and pay for it, then that's their choice.

By the way, when we were fighting insurgents in Northern Ireland, how much help did they provide?

[andyy]

If CGS is so concerned about needing more infantry, and doesn't think we need "balanced forces" anymore, perhaps he'd like to tell all his Cavalry chums to lay up their tanks for good and convert to the infantry role. After all, although tanks were used in Iraq, they are not being used in 'Stan & by the General's own logic we should equip to fight the war we are fighting now.

[phil gollin]

" ....... Our mandate was to remove Al Queda from Afg. ,,,,,,, "


No - stop believing the politicans re-writing history.

Apart from some support for the invasion of Afghanistan (e.g. special forces and re-fuelling) our efforsts have ALWAYS been associated with "Nation Building".

The US RESERVED TO ITSELF the fighting of the Taliban/AQ and did not want NATO associatedwith that fighting (although never spelt out the general reasons repoted in the press was for National Pride (i.e. revenge) and also so that they did not have to have a coalition command with NATO members having a veto on some of the more questionable tactics.

Unfortunately the Taliban/AQ wouldn't go along with the US plan and stay in one place to be bombed to bits and so in 2007 (?) there was a new agreement with NATO, but the main fight against the Taliban/AQ is still meant to be the US's. The US likes to paint Afghanistan as a NATO failure, but unfortunately the actual history is that the US failed to do the task they reserved to themselves (destroying the Taliban/AQ) and also failed to provide sufficient forces themselves thus meaning that they needed to get extra NATO forces involved.

NATO's main role is still officially "Nation Building" - the fact that the un-destroyed Taliban is fighting them is a consequence of previous failures.

Just remember what actually happened - not the spin politicans keep spouting. And when being told which nations "failed" or "are failing" in their mission or in providing sufficient forces, just remember what actually happened.

.

[glad rag]

.........YouTube - SAILOR + PINK FLOYD Vieques, Puerto Rico Bombing Range (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvuu2hGhYoY&feature=related)

Q. What do these aircraft all have in common?:hmm::hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

By the way, when we were fighting insurgents in Northern Ireland, how much help did they provide?

Quite a lot by all accounts and we have just given one an honorary knighthood have we not?

[Navaleye]

With respect. Dare I say NORAID and the support in had in Congress? We all know what that was a front for.

[steamchicken]

Regarding the carrier as "not really a complicated job", there's a Yorkshire proverb that fits;

Buy cheap, buy twice.

[Navaleye]

Steam,

Well said.

N

[Pontius Navigator]

Torpy doing really well in his last month.

Tossing hand grenades and firing torpydoes.

In today's Sunday Telegraph (7 Jun) he says that the JSF will be an RAF asset but doesn't quite say that the FAA will disappear. So while Sir Johnathon is fighting the Army to retain his carriers Torpy is sneaking in and nicking his aircraft.

From an engineering and logisitics aspect it perhaps makes sense to concentrate on one organisation. The various contracted flying trainng systems are an example. At an operations or manning level it is quite different. I only want to comment on manning and operations is already well covered.

How do you recruit and retain personnel?

At a very basic level people join the Services for very simple reasons. Soliders join to fight; airmen to fly; the navy to see the world. Soliders expect to deploy; they often expect only to serve for a few years. Airmen expect to be largely static and serve to pension age; Sailors expect to serve on ships and be away on extended operations.

Suddenly your established recruiting concepts are thrown overboard.

[sailor]

Threw in my tuppenceworth under a new heading of "Fixed wing " in this forum this day.
Looks like this soon-to-retire plonker is trying to make his mark at others' expense before he goes.
Agree entirely with Pontius' views;chances are that Torpytwit has never been aboard a proper floating runway, let alone experienced a night decklanding in lumpy seas with no diversion in range or spare deck available. In the 70's some of his ilk spent time with the Fleet Air Arm frontline squadrons gaining and enjoying their embarked carrier flying doing just that and did a grand job of which they were rightly proud when they returned to their own outfits. They would talk much more sense after their experience than he does.
Wonder if he has ever heard of Eric "Winkle" Brown or his achievements.
And he is probably browned off -or should that be light-blued off ? - with the present Fly Navy 100 celebrations!
He is helping this useless government in their "divide and rule" strategy between the services and should be required to take a long walk off a short plank ASAP. With a reduced pension.

[NURSE]

I'm sure the atomsphere in Joint Harrier and Joint Helecopter this morning is interesting.

[Double Zero]

Winkle Brown was asked - or chose in the case of the Me163 - to do a lot of daft things, a true research pilot.

He's very against VSTOL / STOVL aircraft though, which surprised me; ' stop then land ' always appealed to me, ( not a pilot, just a test team type ) as well as the Harrier's load carrying abilities - you can stick virtually anything on the pylons, and it will still go on its' fuel guzzling way.

I also asked Winkle why the hell didn't the WW11 Navy use the Hurricane more ? He answered that he wanted something copable to deal with the 190.

My Father was a leading engine mechanic on Seafires at Salerno, with no Wind Over Deck; after 2 days there were 6 aircraft left out of 36 on Unicorn, with no enemy involvment - with it's feeble narrow track gear,
the Spitfire seems a poor choice for use on small carriers.

I'd have thought having a possibly cannon armed & very manourable fighter ( Hurricane ) available to fly, rather than a mangled heap on the foredeck would be an advantage, even against FW 190's...

The last I heard recently on the CVF is we'll be lucky to get one.

[Not_a_boffin]

If CVF gets canned, the impact on the TOBA that BVT insisted upon prior to signing anything may be instructive......never mind the payment clauses.

Oh, who's that chap popped up again at MoD now the racing seasons over? Is it time for MIS/DIS the New Chapter?

[NURSE]

did anyone hear the R4 news report of the memo that the QE class are already 25% over budget?

[Jackonicko]

Is anyone REMOTELY surprised?

[LowObservable]

Personally I am shocked, staggered, cosmically gobsmacked and in a state of utter disbelief. However, since they haven't started to spend the money yet, this has to be a projection on someone's part, and the question is whose.

[Cows getting bigger]

Jacko, I'm surprised. i thought it would be at least 35% by now. :ok:

[bit-twiddler]

BBC Link

BBC NEWS | UK | Navy carriers '£1bn over budget' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8125449.stm)

current predictions have it now coming in at 5 billion instead of 3.9 previously guessed at.

Well after already cancelling Soothsayer, Reaper, the E3 upgrades, 3 Nimrods and the Helix R1 upgrade according to Nimrod among MoD's £1.1bn in cuts - Public Service (http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=9625) - that would give them the 1.1 they need :mad:

(Though at least one part of that story has been overtaken by events)

[jim2673]

Best news in a long time.

Cut the project and any further involvement in JSF now.

Country is "broke" and lots of "bankers" need bailing out.:)

[blandy1]

Before the anti-carrier mafia get started - read the full article on the Beeb. It notes that the cost overrun is primarily driven by MoD (well Treasury as we all well know) driven delays ie. longer term material & wage inflation, change in accounting. The article notes that it is felt that the project is actually being run well. (as you would hope - they have had long enough to design & derisk the bloody things)

[Chillimausl]

Don't think BVT and the MoD ever got round to signing a ToBA, not formally anyway.

Babcock hanging on for something similar for Devonport and Faslane. And don't forget the money ploughed into Rosyth for CVF (or the jobs).

Defence Industrial Strategy now hanging by a thread, despite the efforts of industry. Hard to blame industry if you don't do what you say you will. This is potentially very serious stuff that goes far beyond inter-service rivalry.

[Beatriz Fontana]

Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?

Not the MoD's problem that wages have gone up, surely? That's for the contractor to cover, I would've thought. Or am I being completely thick on how PPP contracts work?

I've run hundred-thousand pound projects in the private sector and if a contractor came to me saying their wage bill had risen, they were running late and needed more money from me to deliver, I'd see them in court for breach of contract.

[blandy1]

PS Go to the article in Pestons Picks in the Business page - not the headline one.

[Pontius Navigator]

Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?

Fine in theory but with slim profit margins, yes really, there is not much fat for fines, I mean, that is the whole point of a tight contract. Then if you do fine them they will either up the costs elsewhere or go to the wall. As we don't have Defence Industries in Depth we would be a bit stuck.

[newt]

Anyone running a book on how long before the new carriers are scrapped?

BBC reporting they are £1bn over budget so far this year!!

I know where I would put my money!!

[BillHicksRules]

They need canning now so as to stop the waste of money.

We cannot afford these so lets stop kidding ourselves we are a force in the world anymore.

[TrakBall]

With the number of jobs tied to this project, does anyone really believe the carriers will be cancelled before the next general election? After that, it is anybody's guess and I'm not betting.

TB

[Pontius Navigator]

Archimedes,

I'll go for an each-way bet.

Carriers to go - carriers will be austere and late
Typhoon to go - Typhoon to be put in to storage
Harrier to go - Harrier to be scaled back
JSF will be late -
Army will be re-focused solely for CI role - Army will be re-focused on Canadian or Dutch model :}
Commitments will be maintained - commitments will be ramped up.
Trident and petard!

Spot the odd one out?


It's got to be dark blue.

[NURSE]

I would sugest if the carriers go JSF will go to wether we need first strike capability or not

might we get 1 carrier? only
A400M will be cut
JSF will be reduced
Tornado replacement cancelled and retired without replacement
Nimrod MRA4 cut back to 9 airframes
Nimrod R1 retired without replacement
Puma retired without replacement
Challanger retired without replacement
warrior cut back
AS90 retired withour replacement
MLRS retired without replacemnt
Raiper retired without replacement
HVM retired without replacement

[Pontius Navigator]

Nurse, hard to argue against that. However the inescapable logic is if it is not to be replaced then the capability is not needed so it can be scrapped now. Look at Jaguar. I said the Army to the Canadian model. Maybe a better model would be the new Zealand one.

Except keep Typhoon as the only short take-off and landing, MRCA. then bolster the transport force.

Do we need tankers? Maybe to ferry aircraft to theatre, thereafter use someone else's unless we can 'sell' spare capacity.

[NURSE]

if we go to the New Zealand model shouldn't that go for the airforce to?

[Pontius Navigator]

Nurse, quite, that is what I was thinking of. Does leave the question of Typhoon however. Fire sale to the RAAF?

[Postman Plod]

Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?

Not the MoD's problem that wages have gone up, surely? That's for the contractor to cover, I would've thought. Or am I being completely thick on how PPP contracts work?

I've run hundred-thousand pound projects in the private sector and if a contractor came to me saying their wage bill had risen, they were running late and needed more money from me to deliver, I'd see them in court for breach of contract.

Its not just PPP contracts that work like this - Looking at this from a 3rd party contractors side, what do YOU do as a Project Manager when the scope starts to creep and its outside of your area of control? What happens when the customer changes their demands, or delays a project without providing any timescales, particularly when you have already resourced the project and committed to the materials? Or costs (fuel, materials, labour, etc) outside your control rise astronomically (as they have over the last few years)? You have to re-scope, and to me thats exactly what has happened here. This all seems like normal project management practice to me. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying thats exactly whats happened here, but I'm guessing certainly some of the above is likely to be the case...)

So its all very well saying on time on budget, but that doesn't take into account the realities of a project (and the world), particularly when a CUSTOMER keeps changing the timescales and the requirement and the design (as seems to be the case on defence projects, right up until the last minute), what chance does the contractor have? From my understanding and from what I've seen on here and other places, this seems to sum up defence contracts completely!

If you want something on time and on budget, then don't constantly change your mind throughout the project - accept the deliverables that were scoped, promised and agreed in the first place! That way the only person to blame for any over-runs is the contractor! Even then, there are still factors outside the control of the contractor that would require a rescope.

[andyy]

Personally I think that the Carriers will be canned & with it JSF. The Harriers will be kept & the CVS will be refitted again (to keep the RN happy and some jobs for Babcock at Rosyth); Maybe fit them and the T45 with Tomahawk after all to give some strike capability. Tornado will go early & some Typhoon will be re-roled for a strike/ CAS function. The Army will lose AS90 and MLRS but keep the same number of infantry regiments. Allocate the AWACS aircraft to the NATO pool (& put several airframes in storage?).

Trident - Hmmm, tricky one for the politicos, but if it were me I would try to make political capital out of retiring it - disarmement etc. After all, we have always looked two faced trying to argue with Pakistan, Iran etc that they shouldn't have N weapons but its OK for us to have them.

[andyy]

And this report by defence experts for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for radical changes in British security and defence policy.

The think tank's report is basically a plea that Britain should stop punching "above its weight" and start punching at its proper, much lighter, weight.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Rethink defence, 'declining' UK urged (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm)

[ORAC]

Copy of the paper: Sharing Responsibility (http://www.ippr.org/members/download.asp?f=/ecomm/files/ippr_shared_responsibility.pdf&a=skip)

[NURSE]

Personally I think that the Carriers will be canned & with it JSF. The Harriers will be kept & the CVS will be refitted again (to keep the RN happy and some jobs for Babcock at Rosyth); Maybe fit them and the T45 with Tomahawk after all to give some strike capability. Tornado will go early & some Typhoon will be re-roled for a strike/ CAS function. The Army will lose AS90 and MLRS but keep the same number of infantry regiments. Allocate the AWACS aircraft to the NATO pool (& put several airframes in storage?).

Trident - Hmmm, tricky one for the politicos, but if it were me I would try to make political capital out of retiring it - disarmement etc. After all, we have always looked two faced trying to argue with Pakistan, Iran etc that they shouldn't have N weapons but its OK for us to have them.

I would agree with the connection of JSf & Carriers. Would sugest the Type 45 will get the ship launched verson of storm shadow. And Tonka fleet will retire early.
I would sugest all heavy armour assets of the army will go Ie Challenger/AS90/MLRS and warrior will go to the remaining cavalry regiments as replacement for their beloved MBT's till the next cuts. Infantry will just become passengers in Armoured vehicles .

With the AWACS future you propose would it be feasible/cost effective to fit Rivet Joint Kit onto a "Retired" AWACS airframe?

As to Trident the Big IF is if obama get on the ploiferation high horse and deny's us new or updated missiles as part of his SALT talks with the russians

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

This is far deeper and wider than the CVF arguments.

By means of a very clever Trojan Horse move, Labour (of any vintage) has helped the Forces to paint themselves into a corner. Stretch them to breaking point, deny them the funds to maintain and sustain themselves, set them against each other in competing for “their” share of what may or may not be available and harvest the counter arguments. Add the counter arguments together, provided by the Chiefs of Staff, and cut the Forces on expert and informed advice. In pursuit of that, take further advice from an “independent think tank“, now in the form of the Institute for Public Policy Research.

So how independent is the IPPR? I can’t better the New Statesman fn its assessment; http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2009/04/ippr-research-labour-social (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2009/04/ippr-research-labour-social)


A left-leaning think-tank focused on social justice and the environment. Formally independent but traditionally close to New Labour.
Bearing in mind the credentials of the New Statesman, the IPPR must qualify as far left if the NS think it leans to the left.

About New Statesman
FOUNDATION
The New Statesman was created in 1913 with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas. Its founders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb (later Lord and Lady Passfield), along with Bernard Shaw, and a small but influential group of Fabians. The Webbs' previous publication, The Crusade, had existed to gain support for the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, and for Beatrice Webb's National Committee for the Prevention of Destitution. However, it had died after less than two years, when it became obvious that no government would swallow the Minority Report whole, with all its socialist implications. The New Statesman was created to fill the gap.

Now look at the contributors to the IPPR report;


the Lord G Robertson. Left wing, uncommitted to nuclear weapons and very pro EU (albeit not for unified Forces)


the Lord P Ashdown. Leftish Liberal, uncommitted to nuclear weapons, not averse to a Federal Europe, not averse to becoming a “second rate power” and an accomplished former Marine (landcentric?) with enough experience of violence to, perhaps, prefer to avoid it.


the Lord C Guthrie. Patron of the UK National Defence Association, supported A Blare’s intervention in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, critical of G Brown’s reluctance to spend funds on Defence, uncommitted to SSBNs, and a very “landcentric” thinker.

Sir J Greenstock. Uncommitted to nuclear weapons, committed expert on conflicts between minor Nations and a professional Public Servant who’s true beliefs could be almost anything.

I would imagine that Labour will dispute these findings but will, behind the scenes, be happy to “reluctantly” accept the recommendations. The only sticking point for the Government will be job losses. To use a metaphor that I’ve used before, the waiters are slowly taking over the hotel.


As regards Obama writing us out of any Trident re-lifes; not unless he wants to totally renegotiate the Polaris Sales Agreement, as amended.

[Widger]

Read the report today and it sounded like a manifesto for the Liberal Democrats.

The report contains some very wishful thinking and emphasis on some EU nirvana which will never be met. The Army's fingerprints can be seen all over it. Increase the size of land forces to 120,000 increase spending on homeland defence but get the money from the Defence Budget. How to do that? Well, scrap a whole load of Challenger II, scrap CVF, JCA, T45 and Astute, despite the document acknowledging the need to protect worldwide interests which would require a "Blue Water" Navy and the fact that T45 is replacing T42 which is 1960s technology on a par with Vulcan and Victors.

What is also mentioned, but not advertised widely in the "sea-blind" media, is the recommendations that Tornado goes (F and GR) and that UK Air Defence is heavily reduced (Watch out Scopies).

How will we balance these issues? by reliance on Europe, and by increasing our "security forces" (i.e. The Police and the widely talked about Home Defence force). It seems that the Army are winning the argument, with the support of the Police and other Liberal politicians and have successfully divided the RAF and RN (nice one Torps!)

[andyy]

Yes, I can see us returning to an "not east of Suez" policy. Pity about the Falklands and Afghanistan. Damned inconvenient.

Nurse,
Quote: With the AWACS future you propose would it be feasible/cost effective to fit Rivet Joint Kit onto a "Retired" AWACS airframe? Unquote.

Umm, I bet nothing is cost effective when you take into account the UKs ability to procure/ project manage many things on time, on quality & on cost! There's no budget for it. Probably cheaper to store the E3Ds & lease/ buy some second hand RJs. Procuring RJs is probably one of the programmes that will continue.

Technically there will also be massive (impossible to overcome problems) with mutual interference between the listening kit and the transmitting kit!

As aside, and I'm well out of the loop now, but if I was the RN I would be doing my damndest to work out how to deploy & recover UAVs from a CVS.

[Widger]

CVS???? 26 years so far in a salt water environment in the Case of Ark.......

[NURSE]

Widger:- deep breath in deep breath out relax.....Its only a think tank not govt policy(Yet). I would sugest the current piracy problem has refocused a few minds seaward. I wonder How useful a large carrier would be out on the Horn of africa with lots of merlins aboard or a CVN with a few Sqns of S3B's and Ocean Hawks.
The overspend is alarming but the tone of the memo is that the company are trying to deal with it. But I do wonder how much of it has been created by the slowing of the project to marry up with the JSF. Budgets are way to tight and that has been caused by the annual reductions in real budgets. As a first of class I would be surprised if Queen Elizabeth didn't go over budget and be delayed. Hopefully we don't end up like CVA-01. But that wouldn't surprise me at all.
I think their report is highly optimistic. Ashdown was interviewed on BBC R4 today programme and said about looking for allies outside the Atlantic area and actually if we align ourselves with some of our Commonwealth Allies more closley Like Australia, New Zealand & Canada having the Global reach of carriers makes alot more sense.
I do wonder if the New Australian AD destryer could be adapted to a Type 22/23 replacement?

[NURSE]

Technically there will also be massive (impossible to overcome problems) with mutual interference between the listening kit and the transmitting kit!


but if you strip out the E3D kit back to basic airframe isn't it a 707 and then integrate the Rivet Joint Kit onto that 707 airframe. (Yes I agree the project management might be its down fall)
Yes Buy more RJ's for 32sqn to replace the HS125's & Bae 146's great idea

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

NURSE. Types 22/23 are not Anti Air; they're ASW and AS. We've already spent the money getting the best AAW DD. Every additional one we now buy is, arguably, saving us money.

Agree that aliance within the Commonwealth has many advantages. A better option than Europe.

[NURSE]

Types 22/23 are not Anti Air; they're ASW and AS. We've already spent the money getting the best AAW DD. Every additional one we now buy is, arguably, saving us money.


Agreed the T23 is an ASW platform and the T22/III was the most capable platform we had. Both need replacing and either a variant of The Type 45 or a variant of the AD destroyer re equipped as an ASW platform or GP frigate would be a good idea.

[andyy]

Its just not that simple; its the weapon systems and sensor integration that costs the big £ and that would all have to be new.

TBH, we might be better off with a few "Oceans", with a strengthened flight deck. Run the GR7/9 off them, along with Merlin. IIRC the Ocean cost the same to procure as a single T23. Once GR7/9 dies then i'm afraid its back to the LPH role, with the possible addition of a TLAM type weapon & a maritime UAV?

Its a long way from ideal, but then we are financially screwed and needs must. Still keeps a few people in jobs, too.

[Modern Elmo]

I wonder How useful a large carrier would be out on the Horn of africa with lots of merlins aboard or a CVN with a few Sqns of S3B's and Ocean Hawks.

Not as useful as several smaller warships operating rotary winged aircraft.

[ambidextrous]

Now a dose of economic reality is hitting the MOD (with more penpushers than combat soldiers), thanks to the Great Helmsman's fiscal incompetence over the last twelve years.
Can the long suffering 'little people' whose taxes are paying for this see:
a) Unified defence forces on the lines of the Israeli Defence Forces and an end to the expensive vertical layers of 'top brass' in all three services?
b) Payment for past services rendered to all those servicemen who carried out the MOD's wishes prior to April 1975 finally receiving a pro-rata pension? Or is discrimination going to be allowed to continue on the basis of an arbitrary date?
with fraternal greetings,
ambi:ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Now the steel cutting (on the first of the main hull sections) has started: RN website news article (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/future-ships/queen-elizabeth-class/cv-class-news/a-cut-above-construction-of-biggest-ever-british-warship-begins/*/changeNav/6568)

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said:

"The QE Class, together with the supporting aircraft forming the Carrier Strike, represent a step change in defence’s capability, enabling Britain to deliver airpower from the sea wherever and whenever it is required. This strategic effect, influence and, where necessary, direct action will give us an unprecedented range of options to deal with the challenges of an uncertain world at a time and place of our choosing.”

“These ships are not just spare airfields, they are an instrument of national power: the ‘big stick’ which can be waved by the Government in areas of strategic interest to influence, coerce and deter.”

Guided by Scott Ballingal, a 21 year old BVT apprentice from Erskine who will be working on the Carriers, Rear Admiral the Princess Royal pushed the button to start the computer guided laser that cut the first piece of steel for the hull of these immense new ships.

Scott is one of 70 new apprentices who have been taken on by BVT to support work on the carrier. The programme has reinvigorated apprenticeship schemes at the prime shipyards and provides a solid workload for the coming years.

Three other major sections (called lower blocks) of the ship will be assembled at yards at Portsmouth and Rosyth. Other fabrication work will be done at the Appledore shipyards in Devon. Each block will be transported to Rosyth dockyard where they will be joined together to form the hull of the ship.

While construction is just beginning, the project has moved on apace since the manufacture contract was signed in July last year, with £700M worth of sub-contracts placed for the equipment and furnishings that will kit out the ships from the weapons systems to the galleys and cabins. UK industry has also benefited from the development phase of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and is well placed to win further work as this programme progresses well into the 21st century.

With respect to delays and cost increases, I think Blandy hit it on the head when he said...

Before the anti-carrier mafia get started - read the full article on the Beeb. It notes that the cost overrun is primarily driven by MoD (well Treasury as we all well know) driven delays ie. longer term material & wage inflation, change in accounting. The article notes that it is felt that the project is actually being run well. (as you would hope - they have had long enough to design & derisk the bloody things)

There's a story in my local paper about how a council funded composting facility is over budget - once again largely due to a political decision to run to project over a greater length of time. There's also an advert for shipyard apprentices, to work on CVF amongst other things.

[NURSE]

Don't count your chickens it's not comissioned into the RN yet!

[LFT]

BVT Surface Fleet - HMS Daring Acceptance Off Contract (http://www.bvtsurfacefleet.com/bvt/media/hms_contract)

[Tom Laxey]

The IPPR report undoubtedly gives the impression of being a structured consideration of UK's defence priorities, based on foreign policy goals, linked to the likely threats, current resource constraints and so on. However is that all that drives UK defence policy?

If MOD took IPPR (and others') perspective, it would join several European countries, in having a very practical, cost-effective, but essentially 'reactive' military capability. The IPPR report ignores the arguments for maintaining UK's strategic and technological soveriegnty (it effectively argues to pool this in Europe).

Over the last 40+ years UK has invested many billions in technology which was very expensive, unprofitable, was never used in anger, but which did maintain UK's strategic advantage - such as nuclear warheads, intercontinental missiles, long-range bombers, submarines, aircraft carriers, battlefield weapons, jet fighters, air-air missiles. Many of these products could have been sourced overseas more cheaply, but they weren't, because once a nation pulls out of this technology, it is generally irreversible.

Therefore, despite the IPPR and others' 'disarming' arguments, the UK may well carry stretching its budget up to and beyond the elastic limit, to try to stay in the 'high-tech' end of military capability, however illogical and even perverse it may appear.

[Modern Elmo]

CVS???? 26 years so far in a salt water environment in the Case of Ark.......


USS Enterprise (CVN-65), formerly CVA(N)-65, is the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and the eighth U.S. naval vessel to bear the name. Like her predecessor of World War II fame, she is nicknamed the "Big E." At 1,123 ft (342 m), she is the longest naval vessel in the world, though her 93,500 tons displacement places her as the eleventh heaviest supercarrier, surpassed only by the 10 carriers of the Nimitz-class.

Enterprise is a single class ship and is currently the oldest active vessel still in commission under the United States Navy, excluding the ceremonial commission of USS Constitution. As the oldest carrier in the fleet, she is currently scheduled for decommissioning some time in 2014-2015 depending on the life of her current reactors and when the construction of her replacement, the USS Gerald R. Ford, is completed.[4] Efforts for an earlier retirement in 2012-2013 are under consideration but have yet to be approved by Congress.[5] The earliest possible retirement date would still mean that Enterprise will retire with over 50 years of continuous service, the longest for any aircraft carrier in the history of the USN.[5]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_%28CVN-65%29

[andyy]

Certainly CVF is planned for a 50 ye operational life, and their are several ex RN carriers (and other ships) that are still supposed to be operational in other Navies. I'd argue that its not the hull thats the problem, its the maintenance and updates of the kit inside them.

[Double Zero]

The Enterprise is made of very thick steel, as the Americans had learned the hard way in the Pacific.

Unlike the U.K's CVS, where like most things in the U.K. services, hard won lessons seem all too easily forgotten; remember the tragic accident a few years ago when even a CBLS practice bomb penetrated the deck, severely injuring a member of crew.

That is not meant to cause offence, I have been at Test Ranges where even red-hot Harrier Test Pilots ( not the famous one ! ) have had finger trouble & released stores when they didn't mean to - resulting in a stiff debrief as to what happened & why it wasn't going to happen again.

It should be borne in mind however that the R.N. have a habit of selling off warships which then go on to serve many more years with other navies - witness the type 22's, even type 23's, let alone Hermes with the Indian Navy, laid down at the end of World War II and only just being retired.

Before anyone jumps to blame the current useless government, remember that Thatcher was going to sell Invincible to Australia before the Falklands War saved her political arse - and it, with it's many casualties then & since, need never have happened if her government looked half serious about defence.

She also binned the P1216 STOVL Harrier replacement without a second glance, rodgering a good opportunity for U.K.Ltd and leaving us later to buy the seemingly inferior F-35B at any price the U.S. think they can get away with.

I can see the Indians ( I dealt with them on Sea Harrier FRS51, a great highly professional team, though not too sure about groundcrew support, from photo's I've seen ) having their sights firmly set on Invincible, and using her for a good few years !

She would be very useful in Australia after all, in the event they could afford Harriers or I suppose F-35B.

Towards the end of their lives, the old Bulwark ( 'Rusty B' ) and Ark Royal were known for the lower compartments filled with concrete - one way of stopping water ingress I suppose, but I don't think I'll try it on my little fibreglass 'yacht'...

How about we sell off surplus Admirals & keep the ships ?!

[mlc]

Sadly, Invincible is a worn out hulk. The Indians have bought Russian (and been screwed over in the process!)

[Double Zero]

It takes a very canny person to ' screw over ' the Indian Navy - BAe tried it, and failed miserably- I was there !

God knows what it's costing to rejuvinate the Russian carrier, but I suppose the temptation to fly off Mig 29's was too great to resist.

In an ideal world Invincible would have been stored & maintained in dry dock, but as long as her hull is sound the rest is an opportunity to fit the latest kit, as long as one has suitable aircraft...

[Wrathmonk]

as long as one has suitable aircraft

Which aircraft would that be DZ? Don't think I've seen you mention it by name in any of your other posts, regardless of the thread topic. Go on, give us a clue .... ;)

[david parry]

The only new carriers that the R N will take delivery off, will be the model that was on display. In the Alliance Aircraft Carrier Marquee, i visited last month.:{

[LFT]

"In an ideal world Invincible would have been stored & maintained in dry dock, but as long as her hull is sound the rest is an opportunity to fit the latest kit, as long as one has suitable aircraft..."

Unfortunately if a ship is 'stored' in a dry dock for a period of time the bulkheads start crushing, not good.

[D O Guerrero]

I was under the impression that Invincible was quite happily floating in the basin in Portsmouth? Not in dry dock?

[david parry]

Correct and HMS Invincible is HMS Victory,s guardship;);)

[Not_a_boffin]

Nothing ever floats "happily" in 3 basin. There are some interesting organisms and chemical traces in the basin which over time wreak havoc with the hull and systems. Ark had some serious issues with the amount of time she spent in reduced readiness which is why she's slated to go earlier than Lusty. Invincible is not coming back, ever. Been stripped to support the other two.

In any case, the Indians have a much better plan B, for which steel has been cut before our Lizzie. Don't believe the delivery dates in the programme, but she is underway.....

Vikrant class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant_class_aircraft_carrier)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

This week, the North Devon Journal had a story about how the shipyard at Appledore delivered some of the first parts for CVF.

Appledore shipyard kicks off mega warship project (http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/news/Appledore-shipyard-kicks-mega-warship-project/article-1285088-detail/article.html)

CONSTRUCTION of the biggest warship ever built in the British Isles was due to begin this week with the arrival of its first delivery of parts — from Appledore Shipyard.

The North Devon yard's first contribution towards one of the Ministry of Defence's largest shipbuilding projects ever was described as the milestone that would kick off the whole assembly process.

A 100m Russian ship arrived in Appledore last Wednesday. It was loaded up with 300 tonnes of steel blocks called sponsons, and set sail for Rosyth in Scotland on Friday.

The blocks will form part of the sides of the two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers, giving the flight deck the width needed to enable movement of planes. They have been described by the team as "a bit like mega-Lego" and are the first of about 20 shipments from Appledore which will be put together in Scotland.

Shipbuilding director, Andy Hamilton, said: "We are very proud here in Appledore. These are the first units to arrive on site for the carrier project and it is a big milestone for us."

Appledore's £50 million Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier project has secured 300 jobs in North Devon until 2015 and instilled a new found sense of confidence.
The first piece of steel was cut on December 15 last year and the project has so far been running to schedule.

It wasn't so long ago that the future of shipbuilding at Appledore looked bleak - see here (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/103917-appledore-shipyard.html). Remember the Government was not involved in bringing this yard back to life, industry was. However I have no doubt that the local MPs also share some of the credit.

There are, of course, other local companies involved in producing parts for CVF, other warships, and the JSF/F35. The current work at Appledore continues a tradition of shipbuilding that goes back centuries. We are fortunate that our forefathers had the foresight to build ships and spread our influence beyond our continental backyard.

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF -

Steel is cheap - these sponsons can be reduced to bean-tins fast in double quick time. CVF is not a done deal by a long way yet - there's a Defence Review and a budget crunch to overcome before QEII and PoW put to sea.

But only then do you get to address the real problem - what will we fly off them, how we do the C4ISTAR thing wihout cats and traps, therefore what will we use them for, and how do we protect them in anything other than in a benign environment?

FWIW, in any conceivable budgetary climate, IMHO the RN will be rather better off MINUS CVF because everything else would need to be sacrificed to pay for them, which is absolutely the last thing we need from the RN.

Just my £0.02,

S41

[Jackonicko]

I agree, Squirrel. With CVF, we'll never be able to afford a balanced surface fleet, and the RN will be reduced to being a single Carrier Group.

And the effect on the other services will be even more severe.

Scrap 'em now.

[Trance2]

Scrap 'em now.

Ahh, bless.

And the effect on the other services will be even more severe.

With a defence review coming up next year they could be scrapped. Not that the others services will see any of the money saved of course.:rolleyes:

Tell me jack, is it still the cold war where you live?

[Not_a_boffin]

Jacko is entitled to his own PoV, there's no need for abuse.

However, as far as a balanced surface fleet goes, if you drop CVF, you have no air cover (no reflection on light-blue, you just can't do it effectively from shore) and no ability to project power ashore. At which point you have no rationale for amphibs, T45 (dangerous cricket balls or not), frigates, deep strike aircraft (of whatever hue), SSN or RFA. Before everybody starts divvying up the RN cake, the same applies across the board.

It's binary time folks. Either we do power projection (for all three services) as SDR rightly justified, but Cyclops never funded, or we get out of anything other than home defence entirely. There is no justifiable in-between, irrespective of our current Asian entanglements. So, AD & maritime strike a/c only, MCMV and/or FPVs, limited number of SH, no real need for AT........where do we want to stop?

[Occasional Aviator]

I thought the SDR rationale, and that in Future Navy Vision, and FMOC, was for the carrier to provide a strike capability, not provide "air cover" for the fleet...

[Gainesy]

If we refer to one as PoW, should not the other be ZaP?

[Not_a_boffin]

OA

Indeed, carrier strike is the raison d'etre. However, that doesn't mean it can't do air cover as well. In any sort of air threat environment, someone will have to provide AD of some type for some duration of a campaign. The oppo are unlikely to be using cricket balls (see T45) and even if they were, shoot the archer not the arrow is always a good idea.

[Finnpog]

the other should be KeR - but only when Pompey is renamed as Stately Wayne Manor.:ok:

[WE Branch Fanatic]

OA

I thought the SDR rationale, and that in Future Navy Vision, and FMOC, was for the carrier to provide a strike capability, not provide "air cover" for the fleet...

That strike capability cannot exist in isolation from the rest of the fleet. Think of logistics. Additionally, there is a connection between carrier aviation and amphibious capabilities, which are equally important for the future. Amphibious operations demand at least a measure of air superiority, which means fighters. We should also remember that an enemy will seek to exploit any weakness, and inflicting attrition on logistic shipping, escorts, minehunters etc could well be an attractive option.

Multirole aircraft are the future.

Jacko/S41

In addition the N_a_b's comments about slippery slopes, I wonder where you get the idea from that the money allocated to the carriers could suddenly become free for other naval assets. Without the carriers the Treasury will demand more cuts.

Talking of which, when the Sea Harrier retirement was first discussed on PPRuNe you suggested that we should have a small "Euro Navy" and didn't need to worry about the sea lanes, and the RN only had carriers to justify the surface fleet. But by the time the Sea Jet thread started you were arguing that without carriers we could have more frigates/destroyers to protect the sea lanes.

See this from The Spectator: The case for naval investment (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5290703/the-case-for-naval-investment.thtml)

Also this from RUSI: An `Awakening’ at Sea?: NATO and Maritime Security

There is a downloadable RUSI paper too that is more on topic: The Maritime Contribution to the Joint Campaign and the National Security Strategy (http://www.rusi.org/research/militarysciences/maritime/news/ref:N4A26B3634E8EB/)

The links on the page I have linked to. Very interesting stuff.

[Squirrel 41]

WEBF,

I wonder where you get the idea that the idea that the Treasury are so interested in micro-managing the MoD's programme spending that (with the exception of Trident, where the numbers are so big - c. £78bn / 20 years) it is going to dictate the answer beyond the budgetary envelope. Simply put, money is given to MoD to achieve the stated goals - and it is up to the MoD how to spend it to achieve the agreed goals - so savings in the RN may end up spent on the Army or the RAF, and will do before the money heads back to the Treasury. (And before you tell me that I'm ignorant of the facts, I'm virtually certain that I've been closer to the process at HM Treasury than you have.) With apologies for the length, here are my thoughts.

The 2010 Defence Review needs to do two things: first, produce a prioritised list of what we want the military to do in 2015; and in 2020; and an idea of what capabilities we want in 2025. The political key is clearly winning "the war" in Afghanistan, with broader capabilities to fight "a war" secondary.

Second, we take the budgetary envelope out to 2015 (ie, the next Parliament) and a reasonably credible best guess out to 2020, and draw the line on the first list based on how mcuh we are collectively prepared to spend as a nation. (And no, I don't think that the Tories will increase defence spending at all - indeed, they're doomed to cut spending given their pledges on the NHS and education.)

Against this backdrop, senior RN types are right to be worried: their principal blue-water symmetrical capabilities are not those that will be used in Afghanistan before 2015 (the uber-commendable Bootnecks notwithstanding), and in a rigorous prioritisation, CVF doesn't make the grade. More Type 45s may, and replacement FF/DD certainly will - as long as they are cheaper than the T45 procurement debacle - see Providing Anti Air Warfare Capability: the Type 45 destroyer (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0809/the_type_45_destroyer.aspx). So partnering with France and Italy on FREMM could be a sensible way forward. But CVF? Never going to make the grade - AT THE CURRENT LEVEL OF SPENDING.

The RAF will also see a rebalancing of investment towards transport and rotary wing assets, and if we can find anyone to buy some more Typhoons, then we may well see a reduction in their numbers, too. Tranche 3B is probably dead, and as a light blue person, that's too bad, but inevitable.

CVF's demise would have a significant impact on the RAF, too. If CVF dies, then the argument to keep Harrier in service dies too, so we would probably lose the GR9s by 2012. Looking forward, this implies no need for the compromise of Dave-B, so Dave-A or Dave-C is much more likely to replace Tornado GR4 from 2018/20, with the RAF having two FJ fleets - Typhoon in the Air-to-Air / Swing role, and Dave doing strike.

Having spoken to lots of thoughtful RN people recently, the only credible scenario in which we need a carrier when (a) the US can't be guaranteed to turn up and (b) there is unlikely to be HNS within range, is if we lose the Falklands and have to retake them.

So if the answers are (i) "Buy CVF + escorts" or (ii) "don't lose the Falklands in the first place", then equipping RAF aircraft with a robust anti-shipping capability to sink any putative Argentinian invasion fleet is going to be a darn sight cheaper than CVF. And said thoughtful RN types agree (albeit with long faces).

Hence my point: whatever you think of the CVF design (I favour a CTOL solution with organic AEW and C4ISTAR if we're going to bother at all), the simple reality in the current - and any credible future budgetary climate - is that it is not widely employable enough to be useful enough to justify the costs.

Worse, if the RN presses on regardless with the CVF programme, it will be at the cost of the really useful FF/DD forces, and we will end up with a one-trick pony - a single CVF battle group. Few FF/DD off to do other things (no spare 45s for one thing, 23s mostly doing ASW for the CVF), and a much reduced worldwide capability.... for what? For the ability to send a CVF battle group off to fight....? Ah right, no-one (except Argentina).

Sorry for the length, but without a significant increase in the overall budgetary envelope, I don't see it going any other way, for as long as we wish to continue in Afghanistan.

I would be delighted to have the above refuted and be told why I'm wrong: N-a-B, OA, Evalu8ter, WEBF, over to you.

S41

[Modern Elmo]

Simply put, money is given to MoD to achieve the stated goals - and it is up to the MoD how to spend it to achieve the agreed goals - so savings in the RN may end up spent on the Army or the RAF, and will do before the money heads back to the Treasury. (And before you tell me that I'm ignorant of the facts, I'm virtually certain that I've been closer to the process at HM Treasury than you have.) With apologies for the length, here are my thoughts.

I am more than virtually certain that you have been closer to HM Treasury than me.

However, are you rilly, rilly, rilly, certain and not merely virtually sure that money not spent on aircraft carriers will not be reallocated to more pressing British needs, such as more housing and health care benefits for additional, newly arrived Muslim immigrants?

[Wrathmonk]

Elmo

What S41 says is sort of valid - the carriers are trying to be funded out of the Defence Budget not out of a broader government budget. With MOD funding as it is (i.e. several times overspent) were any military programme cancelled there wouldn't be anything "left over" it would just mean the defecit between what we would like/need and what we can afford would be smaller and other programmes would survive the salami slicing or not need to be delayed. This is made worse where we have cancellation clauses that don't work in the MOD favour (i.e Typhoon and I'm sure (but not certain) the Carriers). Bottom line is we are writing cheques that should be bounced and when you sort the programmes in cost (high to low) the carriers sit at the top. And that makes them a seemingly easy target!

Personally I think we are too late to do much about the Carriers other than reduce to 1 (i.e QEII) and take risk we won't need the second during the five-yearly scheduled refit. As S41 points out though it would need a radical overhaul of Defence tasks etc.

[Not_a_boffin]

S41

From the sounds of it, either you've done an EC tour or dealt with the bi-annual "savings measures" at Strike or ABW, all of which as you'll be well aware attempt to reprofile the cake to deal with the unexpected, the overspent or the latest political decision to put funds "into something". The reprofiling is almost always driven by what was DEP which spends an awful lot of time listening to HMT in conversations where MoD doesn't appear to have a speaking part. For the last ten years, most conversations have generally followed the "no more money overall, but by the way you'll have to fund this that and the other, which public pressure is demanding we do something about".......HMT do have an interest and while they would not meddle in cat C & D programmes, A & B are fair game as far as they're concerned.

In terms of a review, you have to ask what "the war" we equip to fight post-Herrick should be and indeed why? The justification for a platform/system/capability is always driven by whether it allows a win in a campaign. If so, what sort of campaign should we be fighting? Land-centric in Asia? Stabilisation in Africa? Anti-piracy at sea? NATO area, OOA? Control of access to resource is likely to be one of those and a large proportion of those are at or close to the sea. If you want to be taken seriously, you bring a decent capability or sit at the back and do as you're told. Which kind of brings us to the "do power projection or collapse on defence of the UK" question. DD/FF are only justifiable as part of a wider force in that context, as are AT, deep strike, conceivably heavy armour etc. Without the wider force, its the waddo wing, Tiffies for AD and some FSTA, SH, lots of infantry (largely TA), OPV, MCMV & coastal subs.

Just because something is "useful" doesn't mean you can justify it in the great SAG scenario in the sky (generation of which is one of the biggest wastes of time in the MoD!)

[Squirrel 41]

N_a_B,

Your questions are spot on - what are the capabilities that we want to have worldwide post-HERRICK? The problem is that I've not seen anyone suggesting an answer including the cash to fund it - and until they do, it's all posturing.

However, this isn't exclusively a political problem ! The MoD - civil service and military - need to accept that SDR wasn't funded (as was said at the time if anyone read the small print), and that we're fighting a sizeable conflict in Afghanistan (so much for Dr Reid's "no bullets to be fired" speech) and that winning there at supporting those doing the fighting is the only game in town at the moment - and that without extra cash, some big toys will have to go - reprofiling is expensive and only puts things off.

Not easy. Not nice. But essential.

S41

[Occasional Aviator]

S41 - an excellent synopsis of the policy to capability process and its implications..... guess where I used to work?

WEBF - actually, I was only trolling. But, since you bit:

That strike capability cannot exist in isolation from the rest of the fleet.
is at variance with the briefings given by SRO(CS), who sees CVF as a self-supporting asset that would go where the JFACC needs it rather than operating as part of a carrier battle group, and with the previous 1SLs similar statements. Maybe you have a better source than them?

Think of logistics. is a dangerous statement for anyone advocating carrier-based over land-based air for expeditionary ops to make. Let's not discuss classified or commercial stuff on here, but I take it you have seen the assessments of how long the carrier could operate an air group for once it is cut off from a supporting airfield? And exactly how was it that the LM support contract was going to get urgent spares to JSF afloat?

Amphibious operations demand at least a measure of air superiority, which means fighters. And tankers, and AEW, and presumably the ops would also want air ISTAR, AT support etc. Hope there's room for all that on CVF.

an enemy will seek to exploit any weakness, and inflicting attrition on logistic shipping, escorts, minehunters etc could well be an attractive option. Indeed. And another reason why CVF only gives us a fairly niche capability: the ability to do limited strike ops for a limited period against not too serious an enemy. A great tool to have in your golf bag (see the hideously outdated SDR's now largely discredited concept of 'Focussed Intervention'), but as S41 points out, a tool of fairly narrow utility.

[Squirrel 41]

OA,

"guess where I used to work?"

Not in the central policy planning staff, presumably! :E

No-one, least of all me, is suggesting that the CVF programme per se is a bad idea. For a conventionally-powered carrier - esp. with CTOL, Dave-C, E-2D, C-2 COD, Merlin, 4 x T45 AAW and 4 x T23 ASW, 1+ x SSN in DS and MARS x lots to replenish this lot - it's seems to the (non-expert) a bl**dy good design. And clever people are working hard to make sure that it works - both as a warship and as a floating airfield. :ok:

But the question is that to get to a "let's retake the Falklands", you add 2 x LPD, 3 x Bay class, another 1 x CVF, 2 x SSN, every other escort we've still got, and you hope. A lot! Why? Insufficient numbers of T45s to provide area air defence of anything but the CVF, placing a greater reliance on Dave to provide CAP over a landing fleet, means that the CVF's positioning is compromised and her jets are spending more time defending the group rather than putting "warheads on foreheads" in the words of our colonial cousins.

So I do intrinsically favour CVF as a capability - it could be quite useful. Despite being light blue, I favour Dave-C and six dedicated FAA Sqns to go aboard, with E-2D and C-2A to maximise actual operational capability (and to give FCs a chance to compare quality of RN and RAF inflight catering..... :E)

And CVF would look v impressive for cocktail parties, which even the light blue have to accept are useful for the FCO (albeit light blue green with envy!); but it is only useful as part of a balanced force of 12-14 x T45s and a total FF/DD force of c 35 - 40 escorts, along with MARS, SSNs and all the rest of that "naval stuff" that means that it can do its job. And at the moment, there isn't the budget to do that.

S41

[Occasional Aviator]

You're right- not the central staff - but presumably you picked up on my key phrases!

I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you say - I just bite too easily when I hear the reactionary "the answer is 2 carriers, now what's the question".

[Not_a_boffin]

OA

"Think of logistics" is also an extremely dangerous statement for anyone advocating land-based air outside the NATO area. If by the reference to supporting airfields you're referring to the CLS policy for JCA you may have a point. However, it's worth remembering that a CLS policy can be changed, a 100% dependence on the goodwill of the nation hosting your EAW cannot - particularly when "potentially" coupled to a long land route from a port to the airbase of choice, which may or may not be vulnerable to a fairly extensive threat spectrum.

Just running a twenty-sortie per day profile requires north of 100 tonnes of F34 per day at the base, excluding that needed for the GSE, MT pool etc. Thats over 5 big road tankers per day, every day, just to run that profile. Plus the wagons bringing the water (and their fuel) and the vittles (and their fuel) and the stuff that goes bang (and their fuel) and the workshops and spares (and their fuel) and the FPE (and their fuel).

Personally, I'd be a bit happier with organic workshops, galleys, RO plants, stores, self-defence and fuel bunkers. None of which can be got at (easily) unless you're in a full spectrum threat environment with tight RoE..........

[Occasional Aviator]

Oh I do agree NaB - there are conceivably situations when a carrier is the only viable option. The situation you describe - running a fighter wing from a completely bare airfield with absolutely no HNS - possibly being one - and in that situation you're not going to be able to do much more than you could from a carrier anyway.

However, let's be realistic - you're not going to fight an air campaign to support any size of land or amphibious op against a half-decent enemy off a carrier alone. That's all I'm saying.

Let's get carriers for power projection, influence, supporting small-scale focussed interventions etc - but don't allow them to be seen as a substitute for proper air forces. Land-based and carrier air are complementary..... Carriers are sometimes the only way of getting air power to a crisis, but will never be as effective or as economical as operating from tarmac.

The think I'm concerned about is that if people continue to peddle the line that carrier air can do everything that land-based air can do and more, better, we'll end up with an unbalanced air force - which is as bad for a nation's standing as an unbalanced navy.

[Not_a_boffin]

It's not just completely bare bases where that applies - I can think of several currently being used where the supply line is utterly dependent on HNS. However, we are in agreement - complementary is the exact word.

Mind I suspect the Foos and certainly the USN might take issue with the description "proper air forces!"

[Navaleye]

Interesting to read in JDW today about the changes planned for the NSW post Herrick.

Regenerating Core Capabilities.

* Long term deployments lasting weeks or months with 10+ jets are to be come much more common.

* Too much skill fade with the current arrangement.

* Unlikely light blue will get enough sea time to get night qualified. So dark blue will do day/night, light blue day only.

* Joint deployment with USMC will continue, leading to a major ex next spring off the US East coast combining NSW and USMC airgroups. They can operate 16 or more Harriers.

* 801 will stand up late next year as part of the NSW, making 4 sqns in total.

An excellent article by Richard Scott and well worth a read. Good to see the navy getting control of its own destiny back as capabilities are ramped up. Its only right to blame the crabs for everything, but things are moving in the right direction.

I also heard at DSeI that 892NAS maybe making a comeback in a few years. This is a rumour network after all :ok::):D

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

* 801 will stand up late next year as part of the NSW, making 4 sqns in total.
Good news - welcome back to 801 NAS in their own right. :ok:

What will the revised structure be......4 x 12 ac squadrons with 2 RAF heavy (RAF OC) and 2 RN heavy (RN CO) was the original plan for 2004 - is parity (iaw the original JFH agreement) to be achieved eventually? If so, this should be welcomed by both services and perhaps stop some of the more crude efforts at the highest level to drive a wedge into this outstanding Joint force. One to watch! H-W

[Occasional Aviator]

Its only right to blame the crabs for everything,

sigh..... another reference to the secret RAF staff devoted to abolishing the FAA...

[ORAC]

FT: Gray and the Christmas cuts (http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2009/10/gray-and-the-christmas-cuts/)

We’ll have more on this soon. But basically Lord Drayson is going to implement all of the recommendations in the Gray review, apart from a (very radical) plan to to outsource management of the £13bn defence equipment and support budget. He wants to implement it all within 6 months. That means a defence review in every parliament, a 10 year capital budget and a big organisational shake-up that is the MoD equivalent of the storming of the Bastille.

Drayson also admits there is already a hole in the budget plans for 2010 (which is the current “planning round”). They will have to decide on programmes to cut or scale back before Christmas. The “long term” decisions will be left for the strategic defence review. Flagging up the cuts is quite bold stuff and will have industry chiefs reaching for their panic pills.

But on what basis will they decide what to cut? The best decision may turn out to be cancelling the carriers. Will lots of small projects, with “uncommitted” money, be slashed just to tide things over till the MoD can reach this decision next year?

[Bag Man]

Having returned from 6 months away I was interested to hear that 80% of fixed wing sorties in RC(S) are generated by carrier aviation. Shame we don't have a Brit CV that can contribute - YET!


BM

[Widger]

I am intrigued by this view that Queen Elizabeth will be a "niche" capability. Don't just focus on the warfighting role. QE will not just carry F35, but will have the ability to operate a wide variety of other platforms including Chinook, which for the first time will be able to fit in the hangar and possibly even fit CH53. QE will not only be able to Strike, but can also poise for long periods of time, without HNS. QE will have significant capability in the NEO role and also Military aid to the civil population worldwide. QE will also be able to carry out the task of Defence Diplomacy. Much humour is made of the ubiquitous cocktail party but, importantly, QE will be a hunk of sovereign UK territory that can also be used for peaceful purposes, defence sales and strengthen international ties. QE moored up in a foreign port, will not only be a great run-ashore for the crew but more importantly, quite clearly demonstrates that the UK is still important in the world. Whilst alongside, the crew don't just get pissed and play golf, they also support the local Embassies and Consuls in their work, conduct charity work and strengthen links with friendly nations. I am not slagging off Typhoon, but how many of these tasks can that platform conduct? I choose Typhoon because there is a well known Ppruner who insists on placing the "niche" label firmly on QE.

Queen Elizabeth and POW will not be NICHE by any stretch of the imagination. Even without F35 onboard they will be a powerful statement of UK strength and diplomacy and for those in the know, fulfill a large proportion of DSG and Military tasks.

Have a safe weekend

[Bag Man]

Well said Widger.

But I suspect some light blue will still live in denial.



BM

[Nicholas Howard]

Chinook, which for the first time will be able to fit in the hangar and possibly even fit CH53

Trust me, if you can get a spread Chinook in the hangar then a folded CH53 will go in easily. The only snag might be flight deck strength to cope with the MAUM of the 53K which puts the mighty Wokka to shame.

Nick

[Not_a_boffin]

If only Ocean's deck had been designed with a bit more than Merlin in mind, CH53K would be an (outside) runner for FRC(H)........

[ORAC]

Queen Elizabeth and POW will not be NICHE by any stretch of the imagination. As long as the UK perceives a need for expeditionary warfare they are core. If that role is dropped, as was "East of Suez" they are surplus to requirements.

Without a role, and the full range and equipment, manpower and support to maintain it, then building floating gin palaces would be a complete waste of funds.

The question therefore becomes, has Iraq and Afghanistan turned the next government against expeditionary warfare in the same way Suez did the government of the 60s?

In which case, will the QE2 class suffer the same fate as CVA01 (http://books.google.com/books?id=OcRiE47D6aEC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=east+of+suez+carrier+rn&source=bl&ots=gKRAOosP5y&sig=Tk151ZJKHz61opKiHAVYXV2gAFA&hl=en&ei=p-TYSvjxJNOC4QadtqjPCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=east%20of%20suez%20carrier%20rn&f=false)?

[Squirrel 41]

N-a-B, surely "rank outsider" given the cost?

Widger; I'd like to think that I'm not one of the light blue "living in denial" but I can't take your point that CVF is "not niche" seriously. I'm on record on here (probably on this thread as much as anywhere else) in saying that if we had the resources to do it, CVF + Dave-C + E-2D + C-2 + CH-53K / V-22 would be ideal, and highly desirable. But only (i) if we can afford a balanced fleet that goes beyond protecting it, and (ii) if it fits in with our overall capability plans and (iii) is affordable on any realistic future budget.

Simply put, as nice as CVF would be to have, and under specific circumstances it could be vital, these circumstances occurring together - critical UK interests at stake, no HNS, no coalition assets (ie USN CVN / CVBG) - is so rare that CVF's unique capabilities are the very definition of niche. Niche, simply because if any one of these circumstances is not there - then we can do the job better, quicker, cheaper (and unless CVF happens to be in the neighbourhood) - faster with other assets.

And I did read Phoenix Squadron last weekend - and I would claim that this absolutely supports the argument - Ark Royal was in approximately the right area, got a priority warning order from 1SL to "show what carriers can do" and did: a mad dash halfway across the Atlantic pair of Buccs over Belize for 10 mins. All very impressive, and a good read. But a massive effort to do what could have been better achieved by tanking 1 Sqn's Harriers direct to Belize City on day one and leaving them there (as 1417 Flt did until 1993). The difference between this and BLACK BUCK was that the Vulcan could drop bigger bombs from higher up to achieve an effect that the Sea Harriers could not (though presumably Lt Cdr Ward has another view).

So, maybe I qualify in your view as light blue "living in denial". But however cool, interesting and capable, niche is still niche. And currently, we ain't got the dosh for niche.

S41

[Bag Man]

Squirrel

Mate, you are in denial.

There are statements on this web site saying that we can no longer afford the do Iraq/Afghanistan - therefore we don't need a carrier. This is a flawed (illogical) argument. The logic is that to avoid the costs of another Afg we need to avoid 'invading' countries when we 'help them out'. So, tanking the GRs and then letting them stay there immediately puts us into the invasion category (long drawn-out conflict with problems 'getting out'). Carriers enable us to avoid this situation.

By the way, what on earth are you going to do with your invading Harriers once they have dropped their load? How are you going to get the support staff into the country in the first place? I assume is is by tanking the strategic lift with the strategic tankers. And the strategic lift will need 10 a/c to provide 2, and the tankers will need 10 aircraft to provide 2, and the bombers will need to number 100 to provide 8 ... we have spent the whole defence budget already and I haven't started on T&S for the light-blue flying club.



BM

PS Niche means doing something that nobody else does - not making contingencies for things that might never happen.

[Nicholas Howard]

Ocean's deck had been designed with a bit more than Merlin in mind, CH53K would be an (outside) runner for FRC(H)

In fact modifying OCE to take CH53/V-22 would have been relatively cheap and simple. Make the lifts a bit bigger, achievable without having to go through any major structural members, and strengthen the deck (some tertiary stiffeners). All of this would have beenmuch simpler and cheaper than making a Chinook fold.

However...

The V-22 was prohibitively expensive and introducing the 53 was never going to happen as it was seen as introducing another type (we were never going to replace the Chinook), something that the mantra (more different types = more expense) would never allow.

So, we are wjere we are...

Nick

[Arcanum]

There are statements on this web site saying that we can no longer afford the do Iraq/Afghanistan - therefore we don't need a carrier. This is a flawed (illogical) argument. The logic is that to avoid the costs of another Afg we need to avoid 'invading' countries when we 'help them out'. So, tanking the GRs and then letting them stay there immediately puts us into the invasion category (long drawn-out conflict with problems 'getting out'). Carriers enable us to avoid this situation.

If the scope of the conflict is merely to turn up and destory some targets or loiter in the area with a big stick then carriers achieve that aim perfectly.

Yet for a conflict of the scope of Iraq/Afghanistan as soon as ground forces are commited the invasion line has been crossed and having some carrier based aviation that can be withdrawn more quickly is irrelevant. Furthermore, given the number of ground forces required to clear and hold ground for an extended period of time and the demands those forces have for resupply it would seem that some form of local land based aviation is a requirement.

The 'niche' argument for and against carrier aviation is misleading - surely it is about scenarios?

In the scenario where there are no friendly countries in the region that can support land based aviation or where we don't want to commit for an extended period or in the Falklands scenario then a carrier is the only choice.

In the scenario where there are friendly countries in the region or where we are going to be in the region for an extended period of time then land based air power would seem to be a more effective approach.

Also, taking the case of Afghanistan, given the ~500-mile round trip from the Indian ocean to the southern border of Afghanistan, the argument for purely carrier based aviation can only extend to fast-air, not to helicoptor resupply and certainly not casualty evacuation - that must be local.

So from a scenario perspective does the UK want to and can it afford to build and maintain a force that can cover all expeditionary scenarios in addition to all of the other defence scenarios?

[Double Zero]

If " strengthening the decks and enlarging the lift would be a relatively easy task " - I don't want to see your idea of a hard job ! ( Unless I'm on the contract end of it ).

Simple fact is, Ocean should have always been fitted out as a cheap ' Plan B ' carrier, with a ski-ramp and that daft goalkeeper fitted otherwise than the runway centreline ( which seems to my cynical self like a Naval political version of " No - operationally useful -Harriers here ) ".

Much the same for Bulwark, Albion & Argus - I suggest we install a plan NOW that in event of conflict, at least 1 of our 80 + Admirals ( see The 2 Johns sketch on Youtube ) , and a high ranking politician, be aboard; if they knew in advance that might happen, we might get proper ship capabilities and air support inc' fleet defence...

Well I can dream.

[Jabba_TG12]

I realise this may be a bit obtuse but I found this buried away on an Andrew Neil blog on BBC.

I dont know how much of it is true and I realise that it may end up in another light v dark blue death-match, but I found its comments very thought provoking.

Also, I realise that this is a PILOTS rumour network rather than a political one, but...

Anyway, I'm waffling. Can anyone verify any of this info? Or is it hogwash?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2-years of hugely damaging, highly inadequate Labour govt Armed Forces' funding policies- accompanied by misleading public-statements and shameless Labour party self-promotion has likely contributed greatly to this...

The current aircraft carrier design/build programme provides a good example of how badly botched an urgently needed UK military project can become when being run/overseen by senior members of a governing party whose main objective with the project is increasing these member(s) re-election chances, as opposed to the main objective of the project being the nation's best interests:

A cursory examination of the present aircraft carrier programme would indicate to all but the most negatively biased or willfully blind that the Labour govt's absurdly inadequate levels of funding approved for the programme- and apparent direct design-interference- has converted it into a make-work-project fiasco: a disaster waiting to happen....

The Labour-handicapped design-decisions regarding the planned new carriers are- if the project proceeds- going to result in 2 warships that would barely be suitable to fight a mid-twentieth century type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...

The project is accurately described a 'two-nation project'- involving for over 7-years the UK & France:

Porte Avions 2 - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/)

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/)

Unlike France's plans for its 'French version' (PA2) of these warships- which are being designed and were to-be-constructed simultaneously- the UK's new aircraft carriers:

- won't be fitted with with deck-catapults for fixed-wing aircraft launches;

- won't be nuclear powered;

- won't be capable of carrying or deploying tactical nuclear weapons, such as depth charges, anti-surface-target, anti-ship ordinance, etc;

- won't be fitted with up-to-date 'inner layer' airborne threat defences. (Thanks to Labour's underfunding, the new carriers are to be fitted with a 25-year old 'Phalanx' inner layer defence system, once these Phalanx systems become available for cannibalization from retired/decommissioned RN warships);

- won't be fitted with any 'outer layer' airborne threat defence systems at all.

Ship-launched outer layer airborne threat defences are basic equipment on modern, first world countries' warships such as aircraft carriers.

This, to enable incoming airborne threats to be engaged as far out as possible- 15 to 90 miles or more- rather than the barely 1 mile out that Phalanx and similar inner layer defence systems reach their effective limits at...

Modern anti-ship missiles travel in terminal mode at upwards of 3/4 of a mile per second making 'taking a second shot at the incoming missile- if the first shot misses'- highly likely to not be feasible for warships restricted to using only Phalanx or a similar (machine gun based) inner layer defence system.

Technologically up-to-date warships that have outer layer defence systems, and that miss an incoming airborne threat are able to 'take a second shot' at the threat using either their outer layer defence system again- or their inner layer defence system- or both...

Phalanx and similar inner layer warship defence systems have not been shown in tests or battle records to be effective- as stand alone systems- at countering up-to-date airborne threats such as the widely marketed Russian SS-N-27 "Sizzler" anti-ship missile;

- won't be fitted with any sub-surface threat defensive weapons;

- won't be fitted with 'Cooperative engagement Capability' (CEC) sensors and equipment thereby eliminating the new carriers' potential to have the capacity to jointly- with other Royal Navy/allied countries' warships, aircraft, land-based and other assets- engage threats/targets; and

- won't even be fitted with armour...

Why does this matter??

- Lack of fixed-wing aircraft launch catapults:

Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types:

E-2D Hawkeye: The (U.S.) Navy’s New AWACS-

E-2D Hawkeye: The Navy’s New AWACS (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/)

The RN's new carriers will be restricted to Harrier type (short/vertical take off & land ) fixed-wing aircraft & helicopters- that can not duplicate even remotely the function of modern, fixed-wing AWACS...

Without AWACS planes flying high above the respective carrier & its battle group- scanning OVER THE HORIZON for potential threats & theatre data- carriers & their support/escort ships are enormously vulnerable to low-flying (sea-skimming) incoming airborne threats such as supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles & aircraft...

- The UK’s new aircraft carriers won’t be nuclear powered:

meaning these ships- if built- will be unable to generate sufficient power for fitting them with coming on stream/under-development 21st century armaments such as Directed Energy Weapons (DEWS) & will be significantly range/endurance-limited due to their fossil-fuel engines- & their aircraft- requiring constant refills of fuel from supply ships- particularly problematic if, during a conflict, the carrier's supply ships get sunk....

- UK Royal Navy’s future abilities to deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons at risk:

Due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers- unlike France's version(s) of these warships- won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons...

.... Thereby eliminating these ships' usefulness in a legitimate hot-war- a situation that only the very most willfully ignorant/tunnel visioned would say can be ruled out during the projected 30- 50 year operational life of these "central to the RN's function" warships...

- Current plans for the UK's new aircraft carriers put them, once built, at about 65,000 tonnes vs a projected 75,000 tonnes for the French version(s):

Britain’s New CVF Future Carriers (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/)

France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project? (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/)

- The UK's new aircraft carriers won't have 'outer layer' airborne threat defences and won't be fitted with armour:

ALL first world countries- other than the UK- that have recently built or are planning to build 'pocket sized', medium sized & 'big deck' (supercarrier) aircraft carriers have made sure/are ensuring that their carriers are extensively fitted with armour...

The United States has made an extra effort in this regard in the construction of its undergoing sea-trials 'Nimitz transitional' class supercarrier- the GHW Bush- & in the design work for the next-generation 'G Ford' class supercarriers...

Similarly, the US government has ensured that the US Navy's existing Nimitz class and 'improved Nimitz class' supercarriers are comprehensively fitted out with cutting-edge technology armour-

Improved Nimitz Class Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier | Military-Today.com (http://www.military-today.com/navy/improved_nimitz_class.htm) :

"... These (US Navy Nimitz class supercarriers) were completed with Kevlar armour over their vital areas and have improved hull protection arrangements..."

"The Kevlar armour has been retrofitted to the earlier carriers, as have many of the advanced systems built into the newer ships..."

Meanwhile the UK Labour govt has engineered the full deletion of armour from the design of the planned new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy- to save money!!!!

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/) :

".... A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations...."

The £4billion Airfix Kit: Behind-the-scenes at Britain's biggest warships | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1100714/The-4billion-Airfix-Kit-Behind-scenes-Britains-biggest-warships.html) :

"... Money has also been saved in side armour protection, though (Simon Knight, the project's Platform Design Director) insists this was a strategic* rather than a budgetary issue...

(*what kind of responsible 'strategy' would support building warships without armour??)

(Simon Knight stated) "'The CVF’s first line of defence is the frigates and the new Type 45 destroyers around us,' he adds....

"'Our only self-defence is close-in weapons systems (IE: 25-year old 'inner layer' Phalanx machine guns- rvl) and small guns...

"'Instead, what you have on the ship is 36 of the most lethal aircraft ever made.'..."

(... aircraft whose designed-capabilities do not include protecting warships from incoming anti-ship missiles...)

Is the value* of a sunk aircraft carrier or two less than the finanacial cost of properly constructing & competently equipping these warships??

(* in pounds, lives-lost and the UK's diminished national stature on the world stage)

If warship armour and inner layer as well as outer layer airborne threat defences weren't vitally important and necessary for modern aircraft carriers to have, again, why would other first world countries'- such as the US, Japan, S. Korea, France, and even Italy- be investing many, many millions of pounds in armour and airborne threat defences for their navies' aircraft carriers??

The CVN 21 (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-213.html)

CVN 21 will be armed with the ESSM (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/cvn-214.html) :

"... (The G Ford class supercarrier) CVN 21 will be armed with the Raytheon Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM), which defends against high-speed, highly manoeuvrable anti-ship missiles...."

The UK's half-baked Aircraft Carrier project should, at the minimum be put on hold until the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) is finished its first stage...

As part of the SDR, the carrier project ought to be examined in-depth to at the least determine:

1) What country(s) is the most industrially appropriate and most likely to be constructive in terms of the resulting warships' capabilities, quality and functionality- for the UK in the design and building of its new aircraft carriers- a country with no internationally recognized expertise or world-leadership in building aircraft carriers- like France- or a country like the United States with its nearly half century of peerless aircraft carrier capabilities leadership and world-leading aircraft carrier technologies' development...??

2) should the UK be designing and building its new aircraft carriers in partnership with the US??

3) what is the optimal propulsion method for these warships, and which method of propulsion will- during their 40-50 year operational lives- best serve to enable mission-competence for these warships, their accompanying escorts, and the Royal Navy generally? (nuclear vs conventional?);

4) considering the unpredictability's of international relationships/world events- and looking 40-50 years ahead: should the UK's new carriers be built so that they can accommodate and deploy tactical/other types of nuclear weapons?

5) should the new carriers be constructed with catapult-launch-of-fixed-wing-aircraft capabilities? AND if no- WHY ??

6) should the new carriers be constructed with the sensors, radars and communication suites required for 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC)??

7) should the new carriers be constructed with outer layer airborne threat defense system(s)??

8) should the new carriers be constructed with "NEW", technologically up-to-date, inner layer airborne threat defense system(s)??, rather than being fitted with recycled 25-year old inner layer defense systems that have been cannibalized from scrapped/decommissioned Type-42 Destroyers (as is currently being directed by Labour)??

9) should any new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy have to be fitted with armour??

10) if yes, should the armour fitted be technologically up-to-date and comprehensively applied?

Why should the UK operate aircraft carriers- or any warships other than tiny coastal patrol boats- and especially, why plan to task these vessels with 'world role' missions- if the UK is not going to ensure that they are sufficiently up to date- weapons and defensive systems wise- to perform capably against known-to-exist and expected types of threats??

Immediate govt actions to upgrade the Royal Navy's grievously degenerated, dangerously inadequate capabilities are needed... not more false-logic avoidance of reality...

Without such occurring, voters' confidence levels in whatever party forms govt can only be damaged...




__________________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


(**lights blue touchpaper and scarpers to safe distance**)

[Wrathmonk]

Jabba

You may wish to repost it in this long, long, long running thread

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/221116-future-carrier.html

before WEBF gets to you (and then delete your original!);)

(although I'm sure the MODS will merge the threads in due course anyway)

[Gainesy]

All interesting points Jabba, but it has an "old" smell to it. Do you have any dates that this was written/published?

[angels]

By the time you've finished reading the thread and its associated links the things will have been built anyway......

[Archimedes]

I realise this may be a bit obtuse but I found this buried away on an Andrew Neil blog on BBC.

I dont know how much of it is true and I realise that it may end up in another light v dark blue death-match, but I found its comments very thought provoking.

Also, I realise that this is a PILOTS rumour network rather than a political one, but...

Anyway, I'm waffling. Can anyone verify any of this info? Or is it hogwash?



It's a bit long and rather rambling in places (more on that anon), but...

12-years of hugely damaging, highly inadequate Labour govt Armed Forces' funding policies- accompanied by misleading public-statements and shameless Labour party self-promotion has likely contributed greatly to this...

The current aircraft carrier design/build programme provides a good example of how badly botched an urgently needed UK military project can become when being run/overseen by senior members of a governing party whose main objective with the project is increasing these member(s) re-election chances, as opposed to the main objective of the project being the nation's best interests:

The first question that springs to mind - almost as if to cue Jackonicko - is whether or not the CVF is urgently-needed. Just as JN is on record as saying it isn't needed at all, I'm on record (helpfully for insomniacs) as saying that if the government was/is serious about expeditionary warfare it requires carriers - but not at the expense of other capabilities such as (in no particular order) UK AD, the provision of MPA, SH, ISTAR and AT in sufficient numbers, and perhaps being kind enough to give the VC10 the opportunity to retire before the airframes are old enough to be given a state pension.

If the government isn't prepared to fund the full gamut of capabilities, then the fundamental question of whether we should aspire to expeditionary ops has to be asked, and if the answer comes back as 'No', or 'Yes, but only in a limited form' then the urgency for the CVF (yes, I know I should be calling it the 'Queen Elizabeth class', but...) is up for doubt. The author doesn't give us any sense of whether or not he has considered this matter or whether he's taken a 'the carriers come hell, high water or high tempo land operations' position. I suspect the latter...

Cherry-picking bits and bobs:

The Labour-handicapped design-decisions regarding the planned new carriers are- if the project proceeds- going to result in 2 warships that would barely be suitable to fight a mid-twentieth century type conflict, and certainly not 21st century ones...


His evidence for this stunning assertion is...?

Unlike France's plans for its 'French version' (PA2) of these warships- which are being designed and were to-be-constructed simultaneously- the UK's new aircraft carriers:

- won't be fitted with with deck-catapults for fixed-wing aircraft launches

But the design can be amended to accomodate such types; he's missing the point that the provisional decision to go with the F-35B meant that the expense of adding catapults (and what about the arrestor gear??) was avoided. It may be that we end up with a conventional carrier and the F-35C; we just don't know yet. So this charge is a bit of a straw man effort. I don't dispute the fact that it would be better if MASC came in the form of the E-2D, but given the current spending constraints, it seems unlikely that this would be procured anyway.

- won't be nuclear powered;

Because of the expense of doing this. The old USN conventional carriers weren't exactly slouches in projecting air power, so the chap needs to articulate why this is a bad thing and he doesn't. The use of nuclear power was thought to risk making the carriers unaffordable.


- won't be capable of carrying or deploying tactical nuclear weapons, such as depth charges, anti-surface-target, anti-ship ordinance, etc

A major problem being unable to carry weapons we don't have... :hmm:

- won't be fitted with up-to-date 'inner layer' airborne threat defences. (Thanks to Labour's underfunding, the new carriers are to be fitted with a 25-year old 'Phalanx' inner layer defence system, once these Phalanx systems become available for cannibalization from retired/decommissioned RN warships);


The Americans are happy with Phalanx - CVN-77 has them. Can't recall if RIM-116 is to replace Phalanx aboard the Nimitz-class, though. His complaint seems to be that the Phalanx is old - is he, I wonder, making the mistake of suggesting that even though something works, it should be replaced because it's an old design?

- won't be fitted with any 'outer layer' airborne threat defence systems at all.

Not noticed the Nimitz-class touting SM-2/SM-3 capability recently...

Ship-launched outer layer airborne threat defences are basic equipment on modern, first world countries' warships such as aircraft carriers.

Apart from on American CVNs, if one takes the view that the Sea Sparrow is a point defence weapon (which is what the USN has always said it is on its web publicity, and in other PR material in the days before t'interweb). Unless you take the view that the aeroplanes aboard might form part of the outer layer defences...



- won't be fitted with any sub-surface threat defensive weapons;

Nor was Ark Royal, nor is, as far as I recall, the Charles de Gaulle. Unless you count the ASW helicopters, of course...



The chap seems to be a tad obsessed with giving the CVF nuclear weapons storage, but again - are we seriously suggesting that a government in the UK is going to restore tactical nuclear weapons capability to the FAA/Joint Force Lightning II (Joint Force Dave if you wish to set BEagle's teeth on edge...:})


why would other first world countries'- such as the US, Japan, S. Korea, France, and even Italy- be investing many, many millions of pounds in armour and airborne threat defences for their navies' aircraft carriers??

The Japanese and South Koreans are investing in conventional aircraft carriers? Quick, someone - tell them! The Koreans have a vessel which displaces less than the CVS; and the Japanese Hyuga is only a tad larger than the Korean effort. By the by, part of the Hyuga's defences include the apparently useless Phalanx...


I'd suggest that the rest of the blog post becomes a bit of a rant, coupled with a spot of Frog-bashing; some bits of his argument give the impression that he secretly wants us to sign up to the CVN-X, which - if that is the case - is a tad... barking.

Immediate govt actions to upgrade the Royal Navy's grievously degenerated, dangerously inadequate capabilities are needed... not more false-logic avoidance of reality...


Now that I can agree with - albeit he should substitute 'British Armed Forces' for 'Royal Navy'...

Mr Lewis has posted similar stuff on the Telegraph's have your say pages - he did something rather long and rambling about how the last budget should've increased funding for the BBC, and there's another link-fest about carriers in the have your say section of the Torygraph from 29th Sept this year (although the Torygraph page won't load, the Zimbabwe News Wire's direct lift of the page does.... :uhoh:)

My take would be that while there's some merit to some bits of his argument, he has a bit of 'let's return to the days when we had big aircraft carriers, Lord Reith at the helm of the Beeb and were, frankly, jolly rude to the French on all occasions' (not that there's necessarily anything fundamentally unsound about the sentiments... :}) which seems to overwhelm his analytical faculties.

[vecvechookattack]

Due to their 'on-the-cheap' design, the RN's planned new aircraft carriers- unlike France's version(s) of these warships- won't be able to stock & use tactical nuclear weapons


Thats because we haven't got any tactical nucleur weapons. We could borrow some though.

[Jabba_TG12]

No sorry, didnt have any dates on it, it just popped up out of nowhere on a BBC blog. On first skim, I thought some of the points were salient, but on review and thanks to those of you who've put in your thoughts maybe one shouldnt be getting too alarmed....:}

[BEagle]

More likely that, since these things will only ever be used to ferry sailors around the world to cockersPs various, by having a 'no nuclear' limitation (whether propulsion or weaponry), they will also be able to call in to the more tree-huggy nations' ports for a pinkers or three.

[mick2088]

That Roderick V. Louis from Canada chap has appeared on several websites rambling on about the same thing even 22 days ago (see Save the Royal Navy - Articles (http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/articles/2009/10/spin-and-lies-labour-claims-to-uk.html)) - I think it started off on the Daily Telegraph and has since spread around the web like a bad case of swine flu. Besides it's pointless talking about the CVFs and PA2 anymore. The two-nation programme was pretty much abandoned last year when Sarkozy decided to postpone a decision on its development until after 2012. The French are now planning to launch an entirely new study looking at the options for a second nuclear or conventionally powered carrier. Like here, money is tight, so they might not even be able to afford to build one.

[ORAC]

Archimedes, when he was talking about the error of not having catapults he was referring to the issues for the subsequent FJ component, which you rebut, rather, as he states explicitly and in detail, the subsequent inability to operate a capable AWACS/AEW such as the Hawkeye.

As such you set up an Aunt Sally to gleefully knock down.

[Archimedes]

ORAC, with respect, I disagree - sadly this paragraph of mine:

I don't dispute the fact that it would be better if MASC came in the form of the E-2D, but given the current spending constraints, it seems unlikely that this would be procured anyway.

Somehow came adrift from the rest of the paragraph dealing with this point (presumably while cutting out bits of the blog post - I shall go and amend it) My contention, though, remains - namely that he has ignored the fact that the CVF can be fitted with catapults, and indeed some rumours going around earlier in the year suggested that the F-35C might be bought, which would lead to the fitment of these items. Mr Lewis is being selective in his argument, since he wishes his readers to believe that the CVF is destined irrevocably to be without catapults.

His objection:


Catapults are necessary for Aircraft Carriers to be able to embark, launch & recover a variety of the most versatile & capable types of fixed-wing aircraft, such as Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) types

as I say, is not unreasonable, but he goes rather quiet upon 'variety' and focuses upon the Hawkeye. In effect, he is suggesting that the RN should procure a carrier with a launch system appropriate to an aircraft that it is doubtful we can afford to meet the MASC requirement...

Mr Lewis's view, therefore, takes little account of key realities - one of which, I suggest, is that his belief that the correct course of action would have been to base the (initial) decision regarding which version of the F-35 to procure upon the choice of the airframe for MASC- which seems somewhat arrse-about-face, IMO.

[Double Zero]

I'm probably wrong or this would have been jumped on by now, but isn't ' Goalkeeper ' a more modern system, touted by a few lucky RN ships such as 'Ocean', compared to the original Phalanx CIWS- whichever it is, I'd rather like to have my ship bristling with them if actually going to war, and allowing barrel depression such as to give nuts in speedboats the bad news too...

[Pontius Navigator]

Touching on the CIWS aspect, a Goalkeeper would indeed be good to deal with fast boats but against sea skimming missiles a 1000 yard engagement distance risks the 'destroyed' missile debris creating a shotgun effect on the target. Kevlar armour, if he is right, would seem a sensible and complimentary option.

On medium range defence, he may be suggesting that the CVS, like the Invincible class had, should have a SAM capability given the shortage of destroyer escorts. This would be a particular British need as the USN has a sufficiency of escorts.

[Modern Elmo]

- won't be fitted with any 'outer layer' airborne threat defence systems at all.

That would be a bad idea, even if the space were available on the proposed aircraft carriers. Missile launches and missile-related radar operations would interfere with aircraft operations and reveal the capital ship's position to opponent radar sensors.

Look, all you fellows need to do is to adjust your attitudes. These two notional ships are more similar to America-class LHA(R)'s than to the Nimitz or Kitty Hawk classes. Just think of 'em that way: bigger LHA(R)'s.

The LHA(R)'s are going to be very useful warships. Liikewise for the RN's Queen and Prince.

[Nicholas Howard]

If " strengthening the decks and enlarging the lift would be a relatively easy task " - I don't want to see your idea of a hard job

Oh I don't know, what about, say, marinising a Chinook with twin folding heads, "wet built" fuselage and beefed up undercarriage? I reckon cutting some steel and moving some cabling would have taken considerably less time and money!

Nick

[Not_a_boffin]

You're not wrong - and making sure all the avionics are compatible with the shipboard EMI/EMC environment might cost a bob or two as well.........

[Double Zero]

I know this has been mentioned previously, but yes, armour of any kind is essential; and that includes one's own aircraft accidents on deck, which seems to have been planned out - remember the unfortunate accident when even a tiny practice bomb penetrated a CVS deck causing serious injury, well say an F-35 of any kind or helo' having a mishap is GOING to happen sometime - another VERY hard won lesson conveniently forgotten.

CIWS; yes, I still don't fancy being on the wrong end of even bits of a high subsonic / supersonic missile, hence armour, and the layered defence, with I presume a Type 23 close by, if we haven't sold them all, ( deals with ASW to an extent too ) and if really lucky a Type 45 further out, then - gasp ! - aircraft able to knock out the guys in black hats either in the air or lair.

As also mentioned, RFA's are the weak link, currently lucky if they get a single CIWS, and probably a few Marines with 20mm & MANPADS; as the Argentinians proved, one doesn't have to play by the rules and go for the capital ships, RFA's - sod the legalitilies I'm afraid - are big juicy targets, and if I were a nasty person in an aircraft, submarine or speedboat, would regard taking one out as a job well done.

I know some are designed to be ' Seawolf capable ' but has there ever even been a trial fit & firing, and if things did get lively, would they have time to fit such sophisticated kit, command control etc ?

Maybe it's corny to say this, but as Rememberance Day approaches, with so many lessons paid before with so much blood, if we're going to 'do' defence let's do it right or don't bother, just roll over, but don't send any of our services out with crap kit.

I have read most of the books going on the Falklands War, ( was involved to a microscopic degree in trying to help Harrier mod's from UK ) and a common theme seems to me to run through them; " Christ, we didn't expect to have to actually go to war in / with THIS ! "

[Benjybh]

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6888962.ece)

[Double Zero]

My God,

I am so surprised I'm reeling in shock...

I'll say it again, ' wouldn't 3 uprated CVS type carriers with Harrier 2+ & GR9 have been more sensible; with one carrier - if lucky and and unless I get the wrong idea, F-35 not an RAF asset & I get the idea it ain't gonna happen.

Wrong now we'll not have a big carrier - maybe might get trundled out between refits, and very likely on this point the F-35 will be cancelled / forwarded to a long, long time in a distant galaxy...

It's probably too late, but is there ANYONE out there willing to climb off their fat pensions and suggest building a usable no.( 3 ) of improved CVS style ships, Harrier 2+ & GR9 to equip them, and a decent fleet ( don't be scared, 'fleet' means a relatively few no. of ships nowadays, but you'll have plenty of chance to see when sent as an observer.

One big ship in dock would be as much use as - fill in your own blanks here...

So are we down to using Typhoons as CAM-SHIP one -offs ? At least it should be able to take out quite a few baddies before taking to the goon suit !

I seem to remember a rather sensible idea, SCADS which containerised protection & even made a mini-carrier out of Container ships STUFT, but like the RFA would require decent protection and command / control systems, ( also to be containerised to a large degree )which I would think there are plenty of ex-recently services willing people to put together AND TEST TRIAL ; still we'll all rest easier in our beds knowing the Arts & Ballet are well covered.

Note all options really rely on Harrier 2+ for layered defence / some ' swing role ' strike, and GR9 for pure strike.

F-35B later.

[GreenKnight121]

Read the flipping article, will you?

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.


BOTH CVF WILL STILL BE BUILT... it is the aircraft that are being cut.

There will only be enough F-35B to equip one carrier, with the second being used for "amphibious commando operations"... thus eliminating any replacement hull for HMS Ocean.

Guess what... this "dual-role capability was one of the design characteristics of CVF.

Since the only F-35-specific equipment is the maintenance outfit, and all the air-control etc equipment is still needed for the helicopters required for the LPH role, the basic ship will remain unaltered.


And so what... the production line for F-35B, and for the maintenance equipment for them, will still be churning them out for a long time to come.

Plenty of time to buy more later, after budgets are adjusted and economic recovery boosts revenue.

At least 2 of Ocean, Ark Royal, or Illustrious will still be around in 2014*, and one in 2016*... so there is still time to do something about a new amphib ship as well.

*the years the crews will be needed to start transition to man the new hulls in trials/pre-commissioning work-ups

[Wholigan]

From the above article.


Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.
The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit


Excuse my ignorance, but I would imagine that it is probably already too late to significantly change the design of either of the carriers, and so I guess that the original design allows for the delivery of both capabilities. GreenKnight121 says
this "dual-role capability was one of the design characteristics of CVF
In my mind (admittedly it is very early in the morning), would that not mean that a few "adjustments" would enable the carrier that was in 'amphibious commando' fit to embark JSF while the other was in refit?

I have no experience of carrier ops (unless you count the ski jump at Yeovilton ;)), so excuse me if this next question is actually stupid. Would it be possible to mix 'roles' and have both carriers have both capabilities on board?

[ORAC]

The title is totally misleading, I think the navy having got it's spin merchants on the job. The RN keeps it's carriers, but he RAF loses it's half the JSF buy, this a RN cut?

It also marks the demise of JFH with the RAF using Typhoon in place of JSF.

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead. The question here is whether this a cut with the purchased Typhoons being shared amongst smaller squadrons or whether they found they had no way out of the second half of Tranche 3.

Regardless, it a major cut for the RAF, not the RN, and a defeat for the Harrier Mafia.

It will also cause major heartache for the RN with the entire cost of purchase, maintenance, upgrade and manning of the JSF force now falling on just their shoulders.

You have to wonder what size of JSF force will now be purchased, 54-57? That was, after all, the total purchase of Sea Harrier FA1 and FA2.

[Bismark]

Does this mean the Harriers will now be flown solely by the RN and eventually the JSF become a RN owned and operated a/c?

[Wrathmonk]

Bismarck

Possibly, although I would suggest that, if this article is true rather than some clever RN-spin to get the 'defence cuts outrage bus' in motion, than I would agree with ORAC that the size of the future JSF force may well be the size of the current JFH force. IMHO the current (supposed) 50/50 will remain in place if for no other reasons than allow the RN to piggy back some of the costs on to the RAF (flying training etc) [and lets be honest the RN are struggling to man their 50% across all branches/trades at the mo so would probably welcome the help!].

If JSF is transferred lock, stock and barrel across to the RN there may have to be some interesting compromises elsewhere in the RN. Not least because Lossiemouth will revert to its roots and become RNAS Lossiemouth / HMS FULMAR. Wonder if its too late to base JSF at St Mawgan or Yeovilton so they are nearer to the spiritual home?!

Think there's a lot more to play out here. One aspect that hasn't been mentioned is that as part of the CAS/1SL 'negotiations' the reduction to just 1 carriers worth of JSF (but keeping the other one as a commando ship) may have meant the 1SL has 'been forced' to sacrifice fixed wing FAA and that JSF will become a solely light blue asset. Whilst the article states JSF will no longer replace the RAF Tornado fleet it doesn't say that RAF pilots will be reduced or not fly JSF anymore. Just a thought .... ;)

[hulahoop7]

There was NEVER going to be more than a like for like replacement for the GR9s. So 3 x 9 + a small OCU / reserve. 50 should just about cover that. The UK can always return for further buys later.

Move along, no news here.

[LowObservable]

I doubt that the F-35B line will long outlast the completion of the Marines' buy plus the first RN order. Restarting production of all that new hardware will be very expensive. However, should the UK decide to replace the -35B both ships could be retrofitted into carriers again.

[PostMeHappy]

The Times article is nothing new, but factually incorrect - JSF was selected to fulfil the UK JCA requirement to replace Harrier; the replacement for Tornado GR is still TBD...currently floating around as MAYBE unmanned (in the DPOC programme ex-FOAS) or MAYBE manned (possibly F35A\CTOL) or MAYBE a big fat nowt :sad:....now throw that into the 'melting-pot' future of dwindling FW funding...

[Wrathmonk]

the replacement for Tornado GR is still TBD

Unless, of course, someone has leaked information .... wouldn't be the first time in recent years that "advance" information has been leaked to the broadsheets by "disgruntled" staff officers or civil servants;)

Looking at some of the recent posts, particularly from hulahoop7, if the MOD were never going to procure more than the current GR9 force, and given that the JCA buy (I guess) won't include an attrition fleet (or perhaps should if what LowObservable says is correct) how were they ever going to provide enough aircraft for 2 carriers from 50 airframes (which includes an OCU/OEU and aircraft in maintenance)? Or was the intention never to do so? I assume the second carrier is therefore to cover times when the first is in refit.

[jordanpolonijo]

The hardest part for me is to assess which of the two would offer me a better flying career.

I also hate to hear of the navy being cut at every review. They seem to be the punch of the three.

How reputable is the times report? :confused:

[Navaleye]

The MN ordered 37 Rafale Ns for the CdeG. I would expect a similar but slightly larger number ordered for the FAA. 800/801 are now going to spend most of their time at sea until QE is launched and the transfer of personnel to F35 and the new carriers begins in earnest. Who said that we would ever have more then one CVF operational in a fixed wing role? I don't see that anywhere in any official statement and certainly the Navy never thought so.

Post Herrick the role of the RAF's share of JFH is less clear/justifiable in the current financial climate.

[ORAC]

One of the main justifications for the F-35B over the F-35C was that, using STOVL, it would allow the RAF to maintain currency more easily whilst not operating often from the carrier.

If the RAF squadrons go away that justification goes away (even if the RAF provide pilots to the RN squadrons they will presumably do so for full tours).

Given the greater range and weapons load of the F-35C I would presume the case could now be made to fit the carrier with a catapult now and either expand the capability or reduce the number required to perform the same task?

[blandy1]

I would have thought this makes STOVL more appropriate. Conversion of a heli carrier to CTOL if required is a rather bigger job than simply swapping F35Bs between ships as required.

[Modern Elmo]

CVN 21 design

The Gerald R Ford class carriers will be of about the same displacement, about 100,000t, as its predecessor the Nimitz class George HW Bush (CVN 77) but will have about 500 to 900 fewer crew members.

...

The other main differences in operational performance compared to the Nimitz Class are increased sortie rates at 160 sorties a day (compared to 140 a day), ...

NOT an impressive sortie rate! --Elmo


... a weight and stability allowance over the 50-year operational service life of the ship, and increased (by approximately 150%) electrical power generation and distribution to sustain the ship's advanced technology systems ...

The US Navy outlined a requirement for a minimum 150% increase in the power-generation capacity for the CVN 21 carrier compared to the Nimitz Class carriers. The increased power capacity is needed for the four electro-magnetic aircraft launchers and for future systems such as directed energy weapons that might be feasible during the carrier's 50-year lifespan. ...

Yes, well, we're sure that the RN's Queen and Prince will have ample electrical power available for future systems growth, aren't we.

CVN 78 Gerald R Ford Class ? US Navy CVN 21 Future Carrier Programme - Naval Technology (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvn-21/)

[Wrathmonk]

Who said that we would ever have more then one CVF operational in a fixed wing role? I don't see that anywhere in any official statement and certainly the Navy never thought so

Which again begs the question - why two? Wouldn't the money for the second be better spent buying more approprately sized 'amphibious commando' vessels (and perhaps even more than one of them!).

Post Herrick the role of the RAF's share of JFH is less clear/justifiable in the current financial climate

Bit of a throw away line? According to some commentators we will be committed to a 'land-locked' Herrick (assuming we want to 'win' rather than honourably withdraw) for decades, rather than years. Surely the RNs share of JFH is equably less clear/justifiable .... and perhaps posters more biased (:E) would say that the role of JFH and carrier based aviation is less clear/justifiable in the current financial climate.

[mick2088]

How reputable is the times report?

Shouldn't that headline read "Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle... well sort of"?

[mick2088]

Which again begs the question - why two? Wouldn't the money for the second be better spent buying more approprately sized 'amphibious commando' vessels (and perhaps even more than one of them!).I wonder how tight the contract is for HMS Prince of Wales. Construction has only begun on the QE and I think the orders for equipment has only been for that one. Besides, it does seem a bit odd to have a great big 60,000 tonne vessel dedicated only as an amphibious commando ship. Surely, if The Times' article is true and that is the proposal then it could revert to aircraft carrier when QE is in refit or if other circumstances required it to do so.

[Wrathmonk]

it could revert to aircraft carrier when QE is in refit or if other circumstances required it to do so

Nice idea, but in the current financial climate can we afford it? The QE will go in for refit at what intervals and for how long? Every 5-6 years for 6 months? And the manning issues / currency requirements for the ships compliment would be difficult to maintain. The RN complain already about the lack of deck time provided by JFH. With only enough JSF for one carrier we are either going to have two half-trained crews or one fully trained crew. I suppose we could always have all the JSF permanently embarked, including the OCU (!), moored off the coast somewhere. You could make savings by closing the land base then ;).

[Evalu8ter]

Wow..a 65000 ton LPH. The USMC will be jealous.

Joking aside, what's to stop a MAG Configured airgroup going to sea continually? A balanced force of 12-18 F35, 4-6 CH47, 8-12 Medium SH, 8-10 AH and 4 MASC RW (plus some Royals) is pretty well capable of delivering appropriate effect in the vast majority of real operations that the CVF will ever be involved in (Diasater relief, Amphib "poise", limited Forced Intervention etc). The willy-waving value of a 30-40 ac F35B CAG is almost pointless in the real world, and only really of use in a high tempo war against a near peer....which (thankfully) is a very rare event. If we do need to alter the airgroup mid-cruise, then do so. After all, we're always told that HNS is available so staging/Strat AT shouldn't be a problem....

That should see the F35/CH47/CHF boys getting enough deck time and leave sufficient frames in the UK for training- assuming that the RW guys ever grow spare capacity or are pulled out of Afghanistan.

As I've said before, the F35 lines are long and there will be opportunity to buy extra frames if required (A,B or C) - in the same way that the F16 lines have run for years. It actually conveys the advantage of realising amortisation cost benefits and of buying more capable, later block number aircraft.

The priority now is not stealthy FJ ac, it is protected mobility for ground troops (vehicles/RW). At least this gets the hulls - we can make up the numbers, if appropriate, at a later date.

[Tim McLelland]

so... fifty F-35's and one carrier. Won't be long now before the whole sorry saga is abandoned completely - as it should have been years ago. :p

So, how long until the Harrier fleet gets the chop? I'm still putting my money on next September. And the GR4 fleet? Hmm... couple of years?

[Obi Wan Russell]

Tim, I suggest you READ the article, not just the headline, even though it is an awful example of journalism. Before this news came out we were scheduled to get two carriers and a first tranche of about 50 F-35Bs. Now, we are sheduled to get... Two Carriers and 50 F-35Bs to achieve IOC around 2018. The plan was always to have one 'on call' carrier available and a second at a few weeks notice. The second could always double up as a LPH, just as we do now with Lusty and Ark. Buying more F-35Bs later on in the early 2020s is srill a possibility, and the current financial problems won't have any effect on that. The only ship under threat is the replacement for HMS Ocean, though I expect her to be extended into the early 2020s and a replacement to be reinstated sometime after the first CVF is delivered.

[Tim McLelland]

That's rather missing my point - what I was getting- at is that it's just another stage in a path towards what seems to be an inevitable abandonment of the whole carrier/F-35 programme. The process will drag on and on until the carriers have gone, the F-35 is gone, the Harriers are gone, and probably the Tornado GR4 fleet as well. We can all see where we're heading, it's just that some people seem to be unwilling to accept the fact. We're bankrupt and (as ever) punching above our weight.

[phil gollin]

Britain, and America, has a economically hard decade ahed.

By the time POW is in the water though the financial state "should" be better (cross-fingers).

Having said that it is inconceivable that POW will be finished without at least the bare minimum of equipment to be able to operate Lightnings "in an emergency". The savings between that and a full complement of maintenance bays is going to be small beer and I can see it being sneaked in sometime before she is finished.

The real story here is the sacrifice of an HMS Ocean replacement (already rumoured) and a cut in Lightning numbers, The second of these is easily rectified by a later buy of lightnings.

The actual article is a mess, typical both of defence reporting in general and of a Murdoch paper in particular.

.

[Tim McLelland]

easily rectified by a later buy of lightnings

... or a cancellation of the whole order - and a much more likely outcome I suspect!

[Squirrel 41]

Interesting - I took this to be RN spin in overdrive- it feels like "Through Deck Cruisers" all over again.

In sum, this means that we're going to buy two QE-class CVFs, and buy the airwing for one. As other have said, this means that there is a buy of additional airframes later on, and since it would be more expensive to redesign the CVF design to be a super LPH, then it would be (in MoD PR09 world at any rate) a "SAVING" in not redesigning it. So what we have is two CVFs, one of which is called something else. :hmm:

And, um, err, that's it. :confused:

I refer the honourable audience to my previous views on whether we should buy either of these things at all. (Synopsis: "No".)

S41

[Tim McLelland]

I like the brave new Gordy Brown scenario though - brilliant stuff...

Okay you evil Russians, don't forget our nuclear arsenal is out there somewhere, poised to attack you... well okay it might not be if it's in for a refit but that's just a risk you'll have to take... we might be poised to defend ourselves, then again we might not be... tricky little beggars us Brits, ain't we?

And think twice before you pick a fight with us, you evil foreign despots. We'll send our carrier out to get you. Ah yes, well we might not if it's in for a refit but we'll talk to our mates over in France as they said they might lend us a boat... unless theirs is in refit too.

It's enough to strike fear into the heart of any mere mortal.:rolleyes:

[vecvechookattack]

We'll send our carrier out to get you

Carriers...Carriers....there are 2 of them.

[Modern Elmo]

... and since it would be more expensive to redesign the CVF design to be a super LPH ...



Redesign? What redesign would you suggest?

[Wrathmonk]

Vec

There will be 2 of them ....... once King William's grand daughter has cracked the champagne on the hull of the second!;)