Future Carrier (Including Costs)
as long as one has suitable aircraft
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
Unfortunately if a ship is 'stored' in a dry dock for a period of time the bulkheads start crushing, not good.
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
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
Thread Starter
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
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. 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.
Appledore shipyard kicks off mega warship project
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. 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.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Jan 2010 at 18:56.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but no but yeah.......
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
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
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.
And the effect on the other services will be even more severe.
Scrap 'em now.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrap 'em now.
And the effect on the other services will be even more severe.
Tell me jack, is it still the cold war where you live?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
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
The links on the page I have linked to. Very interesting stuff.
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
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
The links on the page I have linked to. Very interesting stuff.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 5th Sep 2009 at 11:43.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treasury-Smeshery
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. 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
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. 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
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
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!)
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!)
