Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Double Zero]

Down to 1 even officially...

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?

Originally Posted by Timesonline article

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 ....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?

[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

[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 () 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.