New UK Aircraft carriers

[comedyjock]

The following article was on the BBC website


A British and a French-owned company are locking horns over a £2.9bn contract to build two giant aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.
On Wednesday BAE Systems revealed its plans for the ships, which are set to replace the Navy's three existing carriers, Illustrious, Invincible and Ark Royal.
BAE is heading a consortium which is fighting it out for the contract with the French-owned Thales Group.
The Ministry of Defence will weigh up both bids and make its final decision by next February with work starting in 2005.
BAE said if it won it would secure the jobs of 8,000 people across the UK.
But Nick West, a spokesman for Thales Group, told BBC News Online their ships would also be 100% designed and built in the UK, but he said he could not specify how many jobs would be involved.
The carriers would be the biggest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. Each ship will be 290 metres long - double the size of the existing carriers. They will have a displacement of 50,000 tonnes and a crew of 1,400. Both ships would be able to carry 48 fighter aircraft capable of 100 sorties a day as well as four surveillance aircraft and six Merlin helicopters, which are designed for anti-submarine warfare.
Unlike similar giant US and French carriers, the new vessels will be electric, not nuclear-powered.
Nigel Stewart, BAE's managing director of the Future Carrier Project, told Wednesday's briefing at the Institute of Strategic Studies in London: "We don't have a single yard with all the resources or capability to build the carrier.
"The only approach is to engage the whole of the UK shipbuilding capability.
"There is going to be work for really the whole of the UK industry.
"Shipbuilding has traditionally been feast and famine.
"Yards build up with resources and then shed resources. We must think of the carrier as another piece of jigsaw.
"It must help us to build a long-term future for the industry."
Mr Stewart said it was vital for UK strategic interests that BAE, and not its French-owned competitor, won the contract.
Thales is 34% owned by the French Government.
But Mr West said Thales employed 200 in its ship design office in Bristol alone and would employ thousands more in the UK if it won the contract.
He said Thales, unlike BAE, did not own any shipyards and did not therefore have a "vested interest" in pushing jobs through any particular yard.
He said they would be sub-contracting the work to the yard which offered the best price and quality of work and said this may well mean giving work to a BAE-owned yard.

A few points I thought about.

1. If the MOD dispose of the SHAR where will all the embarked operations experience go?
2. Where do they intend to put these ships when built?
3. Where is the manpower coming from since there is not enough now for the ships they have?
4. where is the money coming from? They can't keep the ships they have afloat?

[Hummingfrog]

"Unlike similar giant US and French carriers, the new vessels will be electric, not nuclear-powered. "
"1. If the MOD dispose of the SHAR where will all the embarked operations experience go? "

They won't need embarked ops experience as these electric powered ships will have no room for a/c as they will need the space for batteries or they will have such a short range due to the cable connecting them to the power station that the RAF will be able to provide the air cover. Does anybody actually think that President Tone will sanction the building of these ships?

HF


:confused:

[solotk]

2 massive carriers?

WhooooooooooHoooooooo

One question for the First Sea Lord.........

Pray tell,where are the jolly jacks going to come from, to crew these bemoths?

Tony

[WE Branch Fanatic]

1. See the various threads relating to the SHAR. Use the search facilty to find them all. Many excellent points made there, including a few by yours truely. I am not going to repeat them again.


2. Good point Solotk. Bah humbug!!

[capt waffoo]

If the Sea Harriers go where will the Navy find fast jet deck qualified instructors to train all the scores of new pilots they will suddenly need? Surely they need to be ramping UP fast jet pilot numbers right now to get the levels of experience they will need in 10 yrs time, not cutting it?

How many people will there be left to take CO, SPLOT or flight cmdrs jobs on the squadron(s)? How will they still be current?


How will they recruit sufficcient numbers of school leavers able to meet the incredibly high standards required for the ornery squadron Joes?

Has anyone on high thought this through?

Maybe the USN will do it all for us....

[BlueWolf]

Call me a cynic if you like, but.....

The money to initially build the ships will come from private enterprise. The winning consortium will build the ships and sell them at a loss to a holding company, thus ensuring they pay no tax for about the next hundred years.
The holding company (also owned by the consortium) will lease the ships to the government. Once depreciation is taken off the lease deal, the holding company will also show a loss. Tax back please.
Government will sub-lease the ships to the RN, allowing payments to come from the operational expenditure budget rather than the capital account, and with some clever accounting, (read: b u l l s h i t) this will show goverment actually making a profit on the deal.
Unfortunately, the drain on the operational expenditure budget will mean cutbacks in the other services.
Most of the RAF will be transferred to the RN to man the vessels, apart from the 40 or so F3s which remain in frontline service (this is as many as can be refitted with Blue Vixen radar poached from Shar).
A joint training facility will be established to go with the JSF, which will see RAF/RN air and deck crews trained by USMC instructors in Canada. Why Canada? Well, why not?
In order to find enough recruits to crew these giant ships, we will have a nice little war with some tin-pot nation somewhere, (Iraq, or New Zealand - no risk there, we don't have defence anymore) take on heaps of keen young warriors, and give them a blooding and test out the JSF at the same time.
How do we pay for this bit you ask? Well, here's the cunning plan; the flight deck is made from solar panels in order to charge the electrics, and the resulting carbon tax credits earned under the Kyoto Protocol will finance the entire thing!
Simple, eh.

[Jimlad]

very quick answer as am in hurry for a meeting!

Manpower - comes from exisitng two vessels, the crew strenght is intended to be the same as it is now - i.e rouglhy 700 crew + airgroup.

HMS Ocean has a crew of 284 and the new Type 45's will have a crew of 180. Just cos its big, doesn't mean it needs masses of crew. The USN is legendary for needing too many people on their ships. An RN frigate will have 2/3 people on the bridge at any one time - Officer of the Watch, Helm, Lookout/signals/teaboy. A US vessel will have around 10-15 people on the bridge doing the job of 3 :)

Don't worry bout the manpower - it is there!

I'll answer other points later if they aren't addressed beforehand.

[solotk]

I take your pont JimLad, but what happens, when your big shiny most-attractive-target-in-the-grid takes a direct hit?

Who is going to fight the fires/damage control/continue to fight the ship? So are we replacing all these bods with software?

Hmmmmmm

Maybe , if crews can be that far reduced, we can go with an Escort Carrier concept? Small, fast, up to 12 aircraft,300 crew sort of thing?

We really shouldn't be competing with the Spams as regards building big Carriers, we can't afford it. But, if you're saying we can......

Then......

I want an updated rifle that works,and an armoured battle taxi with a bigger gun/better engine. Beagle wants the flying Gas station best-for-role , The FJ element want fighters that do the job as advertised , maybe lease F-16/F-15 , The salts want their SHARS , the rotorheads want etc etc etc

In other words, how the f**k can the cost and need be justified? So the RN can boast they have bigger carriers than the Mozambique navy, and they are once again, a "Global" force?

More ships, but smaller,and cheaper. It's time that certain manufacturers were threatened with lucrative contracts going overseas, if they don't get the unit cost sorted out.

We have a lot of ground to cover, in our new role as the World Policemans Bit*h.

Tony

(Rant, rage, wibble)

[Jimlad]

RN went down the escort carrier route with the Invincibles - sure they are smaller, but they cost more becuase to get the same number of aircraft to sea you'd need 4 times as many (4 x crew, 4 x escorts - it all adds up). As I understand it the RN was offered the choice between three invincible sized carriers or 2 larger - they went for the larger ones as better value for money.

As for carrier value. What are carriers there for? Good question - heres my 2p worth.

A carrier serves the RN in several ways - it can provide independent basing for strike aircraft. Too many people assume that bases will always be avaialable in the next crisis - but we can't guarantee that. No bases in the Falklands, lots of issues with our Arab friends this time round over who can operate from where. A carrier can get round that by sitting in international waters and then launching - no worries over who's territory they base from.

A carrier is an all inclusive package - it brings strike, ASW, AEW, CAP to the party. The new ones will bring the chance to operate big RAF helo's and army helo's as well. I know people say that airbases do the same thing - sure,but airbases are still dependent on supplies from outside to maintain the planes. Carriers have all the bits they need embarked in one place.

Next advantage - they can do gunboat diplomacy - something the RAF and Army can't really do. Think about it - you can't overfly foreign airspace without causing an incident + you can't bung troops there either. A CVBG offers the ability to loiter with intent in international waters, showing a capability that can be used if required and sends a clear mesasage to would be aggressors about HMG's views and ability to respond if provoked. A quick fly by does not and cannot achieve the same effect. Effectively Carriers are as useful for their deterrent role and what they do NOT do as their military role. Kuwait 1961 is a classic example of RN coercion, as is the Malacca straits in 63 - I'm sure there are more modern examples -USN + Taiwan straits 1996, I just can't think of any immediately (brain is thinking bout other thinhs :) )

In todays era a carrier is a flexible friend, it is a base, a deterrent and a defender. It can provide defence for the fleet - which is important in any scenario, as the RAF cannot gurantee to provide 24/7 CAP overhead at long ranges - its never been able to, despite government claims and this folly was proven in the Falklands. It provdes a tri service airbase that is flexible, does not rely on the goodwill of foreign powers to use and is an asset that is able to be used by all three services.

I think a lot of hostiliy to carriers here stems from a lack of understanding as to what they do. They are not a navy plaything but a vital part of the fleet structure. My vision for a carrier navy is one in which carriers steam from trouble spot to trouble spot, they provide the initial aircover / strike capability, then as the RAF turns up in greater numbers, they can move out of the line and back into the deterrent phase. Its noticeable that the first response in the Gulf Crisis 1990 was to send US carriers and keep them there until the air force was up and running - which took time. You can;t just fly planes in and say you have a combat ready squadron, it takes time to build them up to strength . The carriers advantage is that it has the munitions / fuel embarked and can move upwards of 600 miles per day. Sure you can move a land based squadron further, but how long will it take to get all the supplies there as well?

My point is simple - stop seeing carriers as a threat to the RAF - see them as an asset from which all three services can use in order to further HMG's own interests.

[MarkD]

Am I right in thinking the current carriers [Invincible, Illustrious, Ark Royal?] have a refit cycle which generally means only one of the three ready for sea [one going out, one going in and one actually in the dock]

If so, how can that cycle be bettered by CVF ensuring at least one carrier ready for extended action at all times?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Jimlad.....again you make excellent points.

Solotk.....small crews means not having enough people to fight fights and perform other aspects of damage control. Even in peactime lean manning causes problems. Consider Ocean. She is a large ship with a small(ish) crew. Painting her is a pain in the ar$e if you're one of that crew.

[Jimlad]

OK - here goes on the whole 3:1 ratio thing - please excuse me if I bore you, but its a bit dull!

The general theory is that to keep one ship on station you require three ships - 1 on station, 1 in workup / transit to the station and finally 1 in refit.

So far so good? Only problem is that this idea is not really accurate anymore - modern ships require refits on a far less regular basis than their predecessors - in 1990 we had 47 escorts, but realistically only 30 were available for deployment at any one time, today we have 32 - but around 25-27 can be got to sea at any one time. So maintenance is getting a lot better than it has been. The problem is that its putting a lot of civvy dockyards out of business as we don't refit so often.

The 3 CVL's do currently work on a 3:1 ratio - but that is government inspired rather than anything else. To save money the Govt provided funds for two airwings rather than three, assuming the third carrier would go to sea in wartime with land based planes from yeovilton etc embarked. Today one is usually alongside or in refit, one is either at sea locally or alongside and one is on deployment.

The new CVf will use a new system whereby they will have a new refit system (details as yet are unclear) meaning far less time is spent in refit. So they will be at sea more than the current three.

The other problem is crew - currently a lot of Rn ships have crew issues due to the acomodatipn - 1 its dire and 2 its too big. The smallest messdeck on a T23 takes 18 people -which makes it hard to get wrens to sea as you need to have 18 plus spares in case one goes ill and needs a replacement. New ships have 6 man cabins, so its going to be much easier to draft people as required to vessels. Also they will be more high tech, so there will be increased automation along the lines of the merchant navy and less requirement for bodies. The USN is or was looking at a crew of around 95 for its next generation 10,000 ton destroyer.

Finally we have TOPMAST coming in, which for long and boring reasons I won't go into, suffice to say that should it work, manpower issues will cease to be a problem (low flying pigs @ 6 o clock s'ah!)

Any other questions? Sorry to be so dull :)

[comedyjock]

All the above are very good and relevant points however.......

1. There will be a lack of experience of operating fixed wing aircraft both aircrew and fish head type people
2. There is not a deep water port suitable for the ships at present
3. lean manning is not always the answer as type 23's show. They struggle with the level of personnel and if a couple go sick it has a massive effect
4. There will be a requirement to refuel these carriers is there sufficient tankers and escorts as they ain't going to let them sail around on their own!!!

[Jimlad]

Ok - in no particular order
1) Lack of experience - if the CVF is STOVL then we keep flying on business as usual till CVF comes along, just transfer and get used to a bigger deck. IF CTOL - agreed there is a problem, however I have heard rumours that the USN is going to let us use their CV's to train up fixed wing pilots on if we go down the CTOL route.

2) Wrong - Portland and Southampton are both eminently suitable for the role of baseport. Problem with pompey is that its too narrow and Guzz - I think there are issues with it being in close proximity to cornwall :)

3) TOPMAST aims to crew ships to 130% (stop laughing its true) so as to ensure 100% capability at all times. I think I understand how it'll be done and it does make sense, but it will upset people intially. Lean Manning won't be an issue (we hope)

4) Sure - big escort construction program going on now - 12 T45's on the way, 20 hull Future Surface Combatant program being launched in about ten years time. The ships are there, plenty of tankers to go round.

God I feel so optimistic I feel I could do Alistars Campbells job :)

[comedyjock]

I hear your optimism however SHAR is going out of service 6 years before the carrier is coming online!!!

Topmast is all very well if there is enough people to fill all the billets and it is run properly but it never is!!

Do you really think his lordship will do a u-turn and reopen Portland?

Don't get me wrong I would like all this to happen but as seems to be the norm it isn't always thought through properly.

[grimfixer]

Just a quick note for the WE branch fanatic,
You really should be concentrating on your kit and not our future carrier programme.:)

[Mmmmnice]

Here's my viewpoint for what it's worth - about 1 euro I should think. Most crabs don't see these huge floating gin palaces as a threat to light blue job creation - it's more a case of the SH force seeing an increased capability for floating expeditionary/gunboat diplomacy-type ops that might involve land-optimised heliborne warriors having to go sailing again - yes you guessed it; sending crabs to sea is about as carefree as herding cats, or loading marbles with a pitchfork. Just tell the Booties that the Merlin is the vehicle of choice for the modern sea-borne soldier - get one for the junglies (without all that ASW kit) please!!!!!!!

[Jimlad]

2006 - 2012 - RN will fly GR9 off the Carriers - new plane, same job.

[ChristopherRobin]

I think a lot of people might be missing the point. A large part of the decision on how big the carrier will be is down to what flavour of Joint Strike Fighter we end up with.

Right now there is a big battle on capitol hill with the US DOD Procurement supremo, Pete Aldridge, wanting to slash the numbers of JSFs produced. This means the USMC are coming under pressure to give up their relatively high-risk VSTOL F-35s in exchange for CTOL versions.

It the VSTOL ain't built then we will have to go for CTOL versions as well, which means big carriers whether we want them or not!

The USMC are resisting this to the bone, so I don't think the VSTOL will get canned, but you can bet their Lordships are sweating the outcome of this fight!

...not to mention LockMart/BAE shareholders.

[Talking Radalt]

Mmmmmmmmnice,
Sending crabs to sea is only like "loading marbles with a pitchfork" because the RN "organisation/management" makes it look that way!
Action-snacks anyone?:rolleyes:

[high spirits]

Talking Radalt,
The RN has "organisation"? I must have been on a different carrier - oh no assault ship(my apologies!)......... the one I was on couldn't organise a run ashore in a planet full of alcohol.

[Talking Radalt]

Funny that...the one I was on couldn't organise a beach assualt in Gibraltar either!:p

[Stan Moore]

Few points of fact... I think.... gleaned from Aviation Leak etc.

CTOL is the term for the USAF variant.... The USN variant is known as the CV (Carrier Variant).

The size of the carrier has, according to The Times, been determined at 40 - 50,000 tonnes

As for pilots... well, I kind of asssume that JFH will migrate to JSF... that was what we were told when the FA2 decision was made, so I assume we will get pilots from the same place. Crabs at sea being akin to herding cats may be the case but it will be a joint force and I guess they'll have to get used to it!

[nosefirsteverytime]

slightly off topic, and might have an extremely simple answer, but as the UK carriers are only on the drawing board, I might as well mention it....

Would the designers consider a catamaran layout for the new carriers? it would give a lot more deck space in my opinion. I mean, just think of bringing two carriers side-by-side, linking the decks (re-enforced by spars below of course), taking out one of the islands and fairing that over. Result: more space. And we all know the advantages that ensue. even a through-deck trap-wire system that isn't angled to one side, because there's no need for the angle.

Just a thought.........

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Nosefirst

The problem with a catamaran is stability. Any warship, of any sort, has to be able to operate in really bad whether.

Another relevent point, if the government gets away with the criminally inept idea of scrapping the Sea Harrier prematurely, where with the Navy get fighter pilots from? If they have been flying Harrier GR9s for six or so years they will lost a lot of air defence skills?

See SHAR threads......

[solotk]

I like the Catamaran idea.

Sufficently diffferent to attract attention, and confirming Britain does indeed rule the waves (Rah-rah Wibble-Dribble)

I like it, double-hull, so more safety, one half living and admin space, other half hangars and flightdeck, or split the two.

I like it, shows imagination. It might be totally impractical, but it's an exciting concept. Any danger of a mock drawing?

Docks and drydocks might be a problem, but who knows.......

[ORAC]

Saw a proposal for one. Had front openings on the lower hanger deck.

The idea was that you launched from the hanger deck and recovered to the upper deck. No angled flight deck required and no launch/recovery cycle problems. Plus the aircraft where sheltered from poor weather for loading/arming etc up to launch.

The other quoted advantages were that fuel and weapons could be stored in the hulls allowing water flooding for damage control etc whilst the crew accommodation could be fitted inboard below the decks.

No chance for the new carriers though. Not in any of the concepts published by either consortium. Off the shelf stuff. ll that can be afforded at the price.

Can't find a picture. Pity.

[BlueWolf]

The Aussies are using cats for high speed sea lifts and littoral ops, and having great success. Trials by the USN and USMC of the same vessel apparently impressed everybody. I can't see why the design couldn't be applied to a carrier; isn't a multihull inherently more stable than a monohull?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

BlueWolf

Basically catamararns are less seaworthy in rough seas. So they wouldn't offer a stable platform for operating aircraft OR weapons. Plus there is the issue of losing space within the hull.

[BEagle]

Not that I know much about ships except that ours are smaller than everyone else's but, regarding catamarans, surely the inter-hull dimension must be such as to avoid a harmonic of the natural wavelength of the sea in which you're bobbing up and down? Not easy for world-wide blue water operations.

Something similar was an original design flaw of the cross-channel hovercraft; apparently the original was horribly unstable in any sort of sea state as it was just the right size to be destabilised by the waves. Putting in a mid-section extension quickly cured things - and made them more profitable!