Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its just more "outsourcing".
India will now perform the roles formerly done by the RN... New Delhi will soon announce the formation of the "British Isles Squadron" of the Indian Navy... specifically tasked with taking over the maritime security of the UK, and protection of its shipping interests.
If the Royal Marine Amphibious Squadron (the Albions & Bays) need a warship escort for any operations, the BIS of the IN will deliver the appropriate capability.
India will now perform the roles formerly done by the RN... New Delhi will soon announce the formation of the "British Isles Squadron" of the Indian Navy... specifically tasked with taking over the maritime security of the UK, and protection of its shipping interests.
If the Royal Marine Amphibious Squadron (the Albions & Bays) need a warship escort for any operations, the BIS of the IN will deliver the appropriate capability.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for Lewis Page's semi-hysterical, over-exaggerated rant about melting decks (typical for him), here is something from 3 months ago...
Osprey deployment a learning experience - MarineCorpsTimes.com
Press Releases - HTTP/1.0
Here is the new procedure:
10 minutes at moderate power or 90 minutes at idle indicates it wasn't much of a problem on the large amphibs.
The smaller ones (LPD/LSD) had more of a problem, as they had been built with thinner deck plates... again a simple solution was found: portable heat shields.
photo cutline 1:
Crewmembers from USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and Marines from MV-22 squadron VMM-263 examine a heat shield developed at Lakehurst prior to positioning it under the engine nacelle of an MV-22 Osprey. In a major joint effort, NAVAIR engineers from Lakehurst and Patuxent River, MD, worked with their NAVSEA counterparts to develop an effective solution to counteract deck heat buildup from MV-22 engine exhaust. Tests show the heat shields to be an effective barrier, keeping deck temperatures within acceptable levels. The joint engineering effort insured that VMM-263 will be able to operate the MV-22 off all the amphibious assault ships when it deployed as part of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit. It will also be the first operational shipboard deployment for the unique tilt-rotor aircraft.
NAVSEA is currently running a program to develop and field a permanent solution... with a desired start for fitting (whatever they come up with) to ships of 2014.
Since MV-22s are currently deploying aboard larger amphibs (and landing/taking off from smaller ones), then it appears that running with the temporary procedures and portable heat shield for the next 5 years is satisfactory!
Osprey deployment a learning experience - MarineCorpsTimes.com
Press Releases - HTTP/1.0
Here is the new procedure:
On LHA and LHD ships, NATOPS procedures dictate that MV-22s suspend one of its two nacelles over the water while sitting on deck with the engines turning. If an Osprey remains on deck with its engines operating for more than 10 minutes, the engine over the deck should be reduced towards idle, and if the crew expects to sit for more than 90 minutes the engine over the deck should be shut down. Typically, if a crew knows they will be on spot for more than 30 minutes they will shut down the over deck engine.
The smaller ones (LPD/LSD) had more of a problem, as they had been built with thinner deck plates... again a simple solution was found: portable heat shields.
photo cutline 1:
Crewmembers from USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) and Marines from MV-22 squadron VMM-263 examine a heat shield developed at Lakehurst prior to positioning it under the engine nacelle of an MV-22 Osprey. In a major joint effort, NAVAIR engineers from Lakehurst and Patuxent River, MD, worked with their NAVSEA counterparts to develop an effective solution to counteract deck heat buildup from MV-22 engine exhaust. Tests show the heat shields to be an effective barrier, keeping deck temperatures within acceptable levels. The joint engineering effort insured that VMM-263 will be able to operate the MV-22 off all the amphibious assault ships when it deployed as part of the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit. It will also be the first operational shipboard deployment for the unique tilt-rotor aircraft.
NAVSEA is currently running a program to develop and field a permanent solution... with a desired start for fitting (whatever they come up with) to ships of 2014.
Since MV-22s are currently deploying aboard larger amphibs (and landing/taking off from smaller ones), then it appears that running with the temporary procedures and portable heat shield for the next 5 years is satisfactory!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Harrier GR1 first visited carriers with wooden decks on early sales tours, there was much wailing & gnashing of teeth.
In the event there were no ill effects.
It takes real progress to come up with something like this; I hope the pilot can place his Osprey accurately over a pre-placed ' heat pad ', as I don't fancy sliding it into situ' under the nacelle !
In the event there were no ill effects.
It takes real progress to come up with something like this; I hope the pilot can place his Osprey accurately over a pre-placed ' heat pad ', as I don't fancy sliding it into situ' under the nacelle !
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heat pads, what fun!
I’m picturing the scene!
Six MV-22s land in a line on deck, Six heat pads are wheeled out by what appears to be three men each. The pads obviously need chain lashings that withstand the heat and prevent them getting airborne with the cab, and while this is going on a team also have to lash and chock the aircraft as usual.
Sounds like fun, especially for the poor sods having to manhandle the pads into position and then lash them whilst being barbecued! Also, when do you remove the pad, before or after take off? (hot, hot, hot!)
As someone who has worked on a flight deck I can say one thing for certain, it’s going to be a whole lot different to a Harrier landing. A Harrier lands, throttles back, rotates nozzles aft and taxis into the graveyard. The heat aspect is negligible, a bit warm up your trouserlegs if you were close, (we were always more worried about the blast ripping our Seaking pitot covers off), about the only place that looks blackened and cooked is behind 5 spot on the Brit carriers because that’s the ground run spot for Harriers. You can’t compare the two.
Six MV-22s land in a line on deck, Six heat pads are wheeled out by what appears to be three men each. The pads obviously need chain lashings that withstand the heat and prevent them getting airborne with the cab, and while this is going on a team also have to lash and chock the aircraft as usual.
Sounds like fun, especially for the poor sods having to manhandle the pads into position and then lash them whilst being barbecued! Also, when do you remove the pad, before or after take off? (hot, hot, hot!)
As someone who has worked on a flight deck I can say one thing for certain, it’s going to be a whole lot different to a Harrier landing. A Harrier lands, throttles back, rotates nozzles aft and taxis into the graveyard. The heat aspect is negligible, a bit warm up your trouserlegs if you were close, (we were always more worried about the blast ripping our Seaking pitot covers off), about the only place that looks blackened and cooked is behind 5 spot on the Brit carriers because that’s the ground run spot for Harriers. You can’t compare the two.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the phrases ' poor sods ' , ' Harrier effect negligible ', and ' hot, hot, hot ' mean we are talking the same language.
Seems to me the Osprey is like a less aesthetic version of a vintage aircraft, racing car or sailing boat; great, as long as someone else is responsible for operating and running the thing.
Seems to me the Osprey is like a less aesthetic version of a vintage aircraft, racing car or sailing boat; great, as long as someone else is responsible for operating and running the thing.
Maybe it's just me, but I could have sworn that the Osprey issue appears to be running vertical nacelles for 10 minutes (ie 600 seconds) on thinner decked amphibs (despite the photo of the heat shield being on an LHA).
Cue immediate shouts of "if only it was a Harrier everything would be OK" somewhat missing the point that when a SHAR recovers, you've got jet blast in close proximity over the deck for about 10 seconds - 1/60 of the time for the problem with V22. Last time I looked no-one ever runs Harriers with nozzles down when on any sort of alert anyway, let alone +30 when you're not even manned up!
Cue immediate shouts of "if only it was a Harrier everything would be OK" somewhat missing the point that when a SHAR recovers, you've got jet blast in close proximity over the deck for about 10 seconds - 1/60 of the time for the problem with V22. Last time I looked no-one ever runs Harriers with nozzles down when on any sort of alert anyway, let alone +30 when you're not even manned up!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except, Oldgrubber, that the pad is needed only on the LSD/LPDs... which can only handle 2 at a time.
The LHA/LHDs have a thicker flight deck, so they are under the "no more than 10 minutes above idle and no more than 90 minutes at idle" regime.
Here is the estimated time-frame for a permanent, "hands-off" solution to the problem:
The Office of Naval Research’s proposed timeline aims to develop a flight deck cooling or heat blocking system by 2014:
• 2010: Award contract.
• 2011: Test materials to handle aircraft heat.
• 2012: Build a large-scale test panel.
• 2013: Conduct land-based testing.
• 2014: Install the Thermal Flight Deck Management system on a ship.
Seems like they think the "temporary" measures are good for the next 5 years... not quite the emergency "good old Lewis Page" is screaming about.
Then there is CVF... with a far thicker flight deck than the LHA/LHDs... where the F-35B will only have its nozzle pointed down during actual landing (vertical or rolling)... less than 1 minute, then the nozzle is rotated back for taxiing, etc.
If the RN ever buys any Ospreys, the thicker deck would make the issue much less impertant... and the USN will have been testing its new Thermal Flight Deck Management system on ships for a while before HMS QE enters trials, so if needed, CVf can get it whenever it is determined to be needed (since the system will be designed to be retrofittable).
The LHA/LHDs have a thicker flight deck, so they are under the "no more than 10 minutes above idle and no more than 90 minutes at idle" regime.
Here is the estimated time-frame for a permanent, "hands-off" solution to the problem:
The Office of Naval Research’s proposed timeline aims to develop a flight deck cooling or heat blocking system by 2014:
• 2010: Award contract.
• 2011: Test materials to handle aircraft heat.
• 2012: Build a large-scale test panel.
• 2013: Conduct land-based testing.
• 2014: Install the Thermal Flight Deck Management system on a ship.
Seems like they think the "temporary" measures are good for the next 5 years... not quite the emergency "good old Lewis Page" is screaming about.
Then there is CVF... with a far thicker flight deck than the LHA/LHDs... where the F-35B will only have its nozzle pointed down during actual landing (vertical or rolling)... less than 1 minute, then the nozzle is rotated back for taxiing, etc.
If the RN ever buys any Ospreys, the thicker deck would make the issue much less impertant... and the USN will have been testing its new Thermal Flight Deck Management system on ships for a while before HMS QE enters trials, so if needed, CVf can get it whenever it is determined to be needed (since the system will be designed to be retrofittable).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some little questions occurr to my uninformed mind;
Is that portable heat pad really so heavy it won't flip and become a serious bit of FOD ?
What the hell is the thermal management system, spraying fresh water over the deck ? - good for performance & bring back, engine wash, not so good for pilot visibility, which he won't be too keen on even if landing is automatic - or is it playing ' cool ' music, the definition of which could lead to serious in-fighting between individuals let alone countries - God forbid the F-35 comes equipped with American music ( well, Bat Out of Hell was alright, otherwise Brit pilots will I'm sure prefer class, such as Pink Floyd & Led Zeppelin..?
And most of all, why the hell should the Osprey hover partly over the deck for 90 minutes ? I can understand the ' safety aircraft ' role for fast jets, though that seems better covered by a helicopter, and I know the Marines carry a lot of kit, but what takes 90 minutes, the grand piano ?
I'd imagine the Osprey uses a lot of fuel hovering or semi at ship speed...
Is that portable heat pad really so heavy it won't flip and become a serious bit of FOD ?
What the hell is the thermal management system, spraying fresh water over the deck ? - good for performance & bring back, engine wash, not so good for pilot visibility, which he won't be too keen on even if landing is automatic - or is it playing ' cool ' music, the definition of which could lead to serious in-fighting between individuals let alone countries - God forbid the F-35 comes equipped with American music ( well, Bat Out of Hell was alright, otherwise Brit pilots will I'm sure prefer class, such as Pink Floyd & Led Zeppelin..?
And most of all, why the hell should the Osprey hover partly over the deck for 90 minutes ? I can understand the ' safety aircraft ' role for fast jets, though that seems better covered by a helicopter, and I know the Marines carry a lot of kit, but what takes 90 minutes, the grand piano ?
I'd imagine the Osprey uses a lot of fuel hovering or semi at ship speed...
Last edited by Double Zero; 25th Nov 2009 at 17:04.
Osprey ain't hovering over the deck for 90 minutes, it is busily upsetting the hippies and melting the polar bears by sitting on deck alert with engines turning and burning for some unfathomable reason!
Plane guard would be performed away from the deck to deconflict from deck and flying activities. US plane guards fly "Star-D" - esentially a race track off the starboard quarter, out of the way of recoveries, but close enough to get stuck in sharpish if required.
Plane guard would be performed away from the deck to deconflict from deck and flying activities. US plane guards fly "Star-D" - esentially a race track off the starboard quarter, out of the way of recoveries, but close enough to get stuck in sharpish if required.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cheers for the correction
Cheers Green Knight,
I'll revise my mental image to six barbecued sailors! (laugh)
I really hope the RN don't buy the osprey for the QE class, that would be the biggest mistake since the cancellation of the Fairey Rotodyne. I mean, c'mon, a wannabe helicopter that can't auto!!!!!
I'm new, is this what they call thread creep (chuckle)
I'll revise my mental image to six barbecued sailors! (laugh)
I really hope the RN don't buy the osprey for the QE class, that would be the biggest mistake since the cancellation of the Fairey Rotodyne. I mean, c'mon, a wannabe helicopter that can't auto!!!!!
I'm new, is this what they call thread creep (chuckle)
Cue immediate shouts of "if only it was a Harrier everything would be OK" somewhat missing the point that when a SHAR recovers, you've got jet blast in close proximity over the deck for about 10 seconds - 1/60 of the time for the problem with V22. Last time I looked no-one ever runs Harriers with nozzles down when on any sort of alert anyway, let alone +30 when you're not even manned up!
that's the sound of the men
working on the
chain...gaaaaang!!
10 seconds!!!!! LMAO!!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
Back in the dim and distant past I did actually get to go aboard Dedalo during a NATO exercise in the med and the problem was this. The hot nozzles did slighty scorch the flightdeck planking, but more importantly it melted the caulking/tar between planks causing leaks into the hangar deck. She was a real floating museum piece.
Thread Starter
If I might be allowed to try to bring the thread back onto the topics relating to CVF (and aircraft).....
More orders this week - Equipment Contracts
Sub-contracts have been awarded by the ACA to:
Imtech Marine and Offshore Ltd in Billingham, Teesside, and Portsmouth for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, worth £120m.
Ship Support Services Ltd based near Rosyth for paint and scaffolding for the build process, worth £105m (SSS Ltd is a joint venture formed between Pyeroy in Gateshead and Cape in Wakefield).
Henry Abrams in Glasgow for transport of sections of the ship from the yards across the UK to Rosyth for final assembly, worth £85m.
Tyco in Manchester for fixed fire fighting systems, worth £15m, and
AEI Cables in Birtley, County Durham, for much of the 2,500km of cabling to be installed, worth £8m.
This follows on from earlier contracts back in November:
Tyneside shipbuilders A&P are celebrating the return of Naval shipbuilding to the North East today with the award of a £55M contract to construct a section of the Royal Navy’s giant new aircraft carriers.
The massive construction project, which will provide around five years’ work for A&P and support the 210-strong workforce, will see A&P construct a 1,000 tonne section that will form part of the first of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers. At 65,000 tonnes, these will be the largest warships ever constructed in the UK.
As well as ones from September:
The sub-contracts include: £16m for 12,000 valves by Score Marine Ltd, based in Peterhead, who employ 675 people at the site; £15m for an integrated waste management system managed by Babcock Strachan and Henshaw in Bristol, helping to sustain employment for their suppliers for the next six to eight years; and £3m for ship lighting and lighting distribution panels by McGeoch Technology Ltd, based in Birmingham, as well as several other smaller contracts.
Although it is really nothing to do with this thread, I think this sort of spending is better for the UK than simply giving endless billions to banks - see some of my comments here.
Here is a link to the Uncorrected Evidence given to the Common's Defence Select Commitee on 15 December 09. On CVF:
Mr Davies: There are limitations, of course; we cannot do everything. Part of my job is establishing that we have got the right priorities. We continually review those priorities. Sometimes we therefore have to say maybe we are going to have to abandon something or else put it off or extend the period of procurement of some new system. We did that in the case of the carriers.
Q431 Chairman: At a cost of over a billion pounds.
Mr Davies: No, no. If you look at the figures in front of you -----
Q432 Chairman: £1.124 million in costs in subsequent years.
Mr Davies: But the cost of rescheduling the carriers, of re-profiling the procurement, was actually £674 million, a lot of money, I know, and you will see that in the report.
Q433 Chairman: Where are you going to find that £674 million?
Mr Davies: That is part of the new cost of the carriers, so we will be finding that over the period of procurement of the carriers.
Q434 Chairman: Is that the "save now, pay later" approach?
Mr Davies: I am not trying to disguise from you that by deciding that we could not afford everything that we wanted to buy this year we had to put some things off, but principally the carriers, and I thought it was responsible to do that with the carriers because we do not need the carriers until the JSF is available to fly off the carriers and they cannot be made available before 2016 anyway. That was a rescheduling which involved no loss of national defence capability but, of course, it involves a cost. When you push things forward it always involves a cost and I do not dispute that and do not deny that. It is a substantial cost, £674 million is over ten per cent of the cost of the two carriers, which is about £5.2 billion.
Is it me or was Davies reluctant to actually say anything?
Another snippet from that the Merlin HC3s will be marinised for operation from ships prior to the Junglies taking them over. On the subject of Merlin, 30 Merlin HM1s will be upgraded to HM2 standard, instead of 38.
Q425 Chairman: Minister, the Major Projects report out today, which I am just about to come on to, says that as a result of your decision to upgrade only 30 instead of 38 Merlin helicopters the Merlin force will be unable to provide simultaneous anti-submarine protection to more than one naval task force, such as an aircraft carrier or amphibious group, unless supplemented by Merlin helicopters used for training. Is that right?
Mr Davies: That sounds correct. If we had an anti-submarine threat against two task groups simultaneously I think we would pull out all the stops to get all the helicopters we could out there.
It has been rumoured that some of these unconverted HM1s will be used for MASC. Since the OSD for all versions of the Sea King has been brought forward, work needs to start on the conversion, including changing the Searchwater radar from using an antenna in an inflatable bag to using the radome position built into the fuselage.
Finally, I'll qoute from another of my posts - here:
We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?
The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?
After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq's Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.
The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft*, AWACS, to name but a few - ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.
* Both land and carrier based.
More orders this week - Equipment Contracts
Sub-contracts have been awarded by the ACA to:
Imtech Marine and Offshore Ltd in Billingham, Teesside, and Portsmouth for heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, worth £120m.
Ship Support Services Ltd based near Rosyth for paint and scaffolding for the build process, worth £105m (SSS Ltd is a joint venture formed between Pyeroy in Gateshead and Cape in Wakefield).
Henry Abrams in Glasgow for transport of sections of the ship from the yards across the UK to Rosyth for final assembly, worth £85m.
Tyco in Manchester for fixed fire fighting systems, worth £15m, and
AEI Cables in Birtley, County Durham, for much of the 2,500km of cabling to be installed, worth £8m.
This follows on from earlier contracts back in November:
Tyneside shipbuilders A&P are celebrating the return of Naval shipbuilding to the North East today with the award of a £55M contract to construct a section of the Royal Navy’s giant new aircraft carriers.
The massive construction project, which will provide around five years’ work for A&P and support the 210-strong workforce, will see A&P construct a 1,000 tonne section that will form part of the first of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers. At 65,000 tonnes, these will be the largest warships ever constructed in the UK.
As well as ones from September:
The sub-contracts include: £16m for 12,000 valves by Score Marine Ltd, based in Peterhead, who employ 675 people at the site; £15m for an integrated waste management system managed by Babcock Strachan and Henshaw in Bristol, helping to sustain employment for their suppliers for the next six to eight years; and £3m for ship lighting and lighting distribution panels by McGeoch Technology Ltd, based in Birmingham, as well as several other smaller contracts.
Although it is really nothing to do with this thread, I think this sort of spending is better for the UK than simply giving endless billions to banks - see some of my comments here.
Here is a link to the Uncorrected Evidence given to the Common's Defence Select Commitee on 15 December 09. On CVF:
Mr Davies: There are limitations, of course; we cannot do everything. Part of my job is establishing that we have got the right priorities. We continually review those priorities. Sometimes we therefore have to say maybe we are going to have to abandon something or else put it off or extend the period of procurement of some new system. We did that in the case of the carriers.
Q431 Chairman: At a cost of over a billion pounds.
Mr Davies: No, no. If you look at the figures in front of you -----
Q432 Chairman: £1.124 million in costs in subsequent years.
Mr Davies: But the cost of rescheduling the carriers, of re-profiling the procurement, was actually £674 million, a lot of money, I know, and you will see that in the report.
Q433 Chairman: Where are you going to find that £674 million?
Mr Davies: That is part of the new cost of the carriers, so we will be finding that over the period of procurement of the carriers.
Q434 Chairman: Is that the "save now, pay later" approach?
Mr Davies: I am not trying to disguise from you that by deciding that we could not afford everything that we wanted to buy this year we had to put some things off, but principally the carriers, and I thought it was responsible to do that with the carriers because we do not need the carriers until the JSF is available to fly off the carriers and they cannot be made available before 2016 anyway. That was a rescheduling which involved no loss of national defence capability but, of course, it involves a cost. When you push things forward it always involves a cost and I do not dispute that and do not deny that. It is a substantial cost, £674 million is over ten per cent of the cost of the two carriers, which is about £5.2 billion.
Is it me or was Davies reluctant to actually say anything?
Another snippet from that the Merlin HC3s will be marinised for operation from ships prior to the Junglies taking them over. On the subject of Merlin, 30 Merlin HM1s will be upgraded to HM2 standard, instead of 38.
Q425 Chairman: Minister, the Major Projects report out today, which I am just about to come on to, says that as a result of your decision to upgrade only 30 instead of 38 Merlin helicopters the Merlin force will be unable to provide simultaneous anti-submarine protection to more than one naval task force, such as an aircraft carrier or amphibious group, unless supplemented by Merlin helicopters used for training. Is that right?
Mr Davies: That sounds correct. If we had an anti-submarine threat against two task groups simultaneously I think we would pull out all the stops to get all the helicopters we could out there.
It has been rumoured that some of these unconverted HM1s will be used for MASC. Since the OSD for all versions of the Sea King has been brought forward, work needs to start on the conversion, including changing the Searchwater radar from using an antenna in an inflatable bag to using the radome position built into the fuselage.
Finally, I'll qoute from another of my posts - here:
We have had a decade of presentation and no substance, dancing while the city burns. Will this year, or this decade, be any better?
The current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have led many in the media, and the public, and most worryingly politics, to conclude that future conflicts will be both land centric and against opponents without a credible navy or air force. Is this not a case of preparing the fight the last (ie current) war?
After Afghanistan, just about every other nation has a coastline. After Saddam era Iraq, other nations will not have had economics sanctions and arms blockade, and no fly zones for over ten years. We ignore that at our peril. Have a look at Iraq's Eastern neighbour. Over a thousand miles of coast (not including the Caspian), a large air force, and a navy that includes submarines of various sorts. The Revolutionary Guards also have naval and air forces. Large sums have been spent on sophisticated SAMs and modern fighter aircraft. Likewise North Korea is also a nation that is neither land locked nor has it been subjects of sanctions preventing it from obtaining arms.
The public seem to have concluded that there is no need for frigates, submarines, fighter aircraft*, AWACS, to name but a few - ignoring the fact that all of these have been busy. I believe/fear that the next few years will show how dangerous these assumptions are.
* Both land and carrier based.
Thread Starter
The two carriers, particularly Queen Elizabeth, are taking shape in a number of British shipyards. Part of her can be seen here.
Today: Milestone for new carrier as bow ready to set sail
There were celebrations today in Devon as the programme to build Britain’s two largest and most powerful Royal Navy warships passed an important milestone.
The bow sections of one of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth, are now completed and ready to set sail from Babcock’s Appledore shipyard in Devon. They will make a six day journey by barge to Rosyth in Scotland, where the ships will be assembled.
Shipyards throughout the UK are contributing their skills to the project – Glasgow, Rosyth, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Devon and Birkenhead – as well as a further 100 contracts throughout the supply chain.
Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:
“The progress we are making with the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers is not only good news for the Royal Navy – it is good news for defence and the UK defence industry. This national project will sustain thousands of jobs in shipyards and in the wider supply chain. The carriers will be a cornerstone of future defence policy and a key asset for our Armed Forces as a whole, providing four acres of sovereign territory which can be deployed to support operations anywhere in the world.”
The two sections will make up the bow of the ship, and together weigh about 400 tonnes. The larger of the two sections - called the bulbous bow - is similar in size and shape to a conventional submarine, yet only a tenth of the full length of the ship. It is designed to increase speed, fuel efficiency and stability - sitting just below the waterline to help the ship to cut cleanly through the water, reducing drag. The second section sits above, making up decks seven to five below the aircraft hangar.
Quite a major local news story. I understand that the F35B has been making progress too.
Today: Milestone for new carrier as bow ready to set sail
There were celebrations today in Devon as the programme to build Britain’s two largest and most powerful Royal Navy warships passed an important milestone.
The bow sections of one of the UK’s two new aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth, are now completed and ready to set sail from Babcock’s Appledore shipyard in Devon. They will make a six day journey by barge to Rosyth in Scotland, where the ships will be assembled.
Shipyards throughout the UK are contributing their skills to the project – Glasgow, Rosyth, Newcastle, Portsmouth, Devon and Birkenhead – as well as a further 100 contracts throughout the supply chain.
Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, Quentin Davies, said:
“The progress we are making with the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers is not only good news for the Royal Navy – it is good news for defence and the UK defence industry. This national project will sustain thousands of jobs in shipyards and in the wider supply chain. The carriers will be a cornerstone of future defence policy and a key asset for our Armed Forces as a whole, providing four acres of sovereign territory which can be deployed to support operations anywhere in the world.”
The two sections will make up the bow of the ship, and together weigh about 400 tonnes. The larger of the two sections - called the bulbous bow - is similar in size and shape to a conventional submarine, yet only a tenth of the full length of the ship. It is designed to increase speed, fuel efficiency and stability - sitting just below the waterline to help the ship to cut cleanly through the water, reducing drag. The second section sits above, making up decks seven to five below the aircraft hangar.
Quite a major local news story. I understand that the F35B has been making progress too.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF -
All very cute. And pointless - we can't afford it and in the grand scheme of things we therefore don't need it. Cut it now without wasting any more cash. And Dave-B is the wrong answer, anyway; Dave-C is a better choice.
S41
All very cute. And pointless - we can't afford it and in the grand scheme of things we therefore don't need it. Cut it now without wasting any more cash. And Dave-B is the wrong answer, anyway; Dave-C is a better choice.
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
we can't afford it and in the grand scheme of things we therefore don't need it.
Pardon the pun, but you've missed the boat. They are being built and are already mostly paid for. Having spent the last week in Gib (75deg down here), gearing up is already underway. Gib can handle a CVF without dredging and she and her airgroup can be in the middle east in 2 days and ready for action. Far far quicker than any land based assets from the UK in the numbers required ready to go. Once ops in the 'Stan are over, the plan is for carrier strike to take over the bulk of tactical strike tasking USN style. The F35B vs C debate is still ongoing, but the staff I have met with expect it to meet all the KURs and the alleged range/payload issues are not a problem as they significantly exceed the GR9A.
These are purple assets. The Army has recognised this, only one service is clinging on to the past. Adapt.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
squirrel,
I don't know how you can say what you said when the NAO have just ripped MoD apart over the cost of FSTA -11.2Bn and counting, and late, and not value for money....makes CVF look cheap.
I don't know how you can say what you said when the NAO have just ripped MoD apart over the cost of FSTA -11.2Bn and counting, and late, and not value for money....makes CVF look cheap.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye, relax....
My point is that constructing QE2 and PoW is a small part of the through-life costs of the Carrier Strike capability. The escorts aren't cheap, the air wing is pretty pricey, and therefore we can call time on it. Whether we build 'em and flog 'em or stop building now is a contractual question: my fear is that we will end up with the CVF programme completely warping the RN's capabilities because everything else is being sacrificed to build these two prestige vessels that actually provide a limited additional capability.
Bismark: FSTA is clearly a rip-off. That fact doesn't mean that everything that is cheaper is good value, does it?
Which is not to say that I'm anti-carrier; far from it: indeed, I may well end up serving on one of them if they ever get into service. So your "adapt" comment is well wide of the mark I'm afraid. But for the good of the RN, I'd stop wasting money on the CVF programme.
S41
My point is that constructing QE2 and PoW is a small part of the through-life costs of the Carrier Strike capability. The escorts aren't cheap, the air wing is pretty pricey, and therefore we can call time on it. Whether we build 'em and flog 'em or stop building now is a contractual question: my fear is that we will end up with the CVF programme completely warping the RN's capabilities because everything else is being sacrificed to build these two prestige vessels that actually provide a limited additional capability.
Bismark: FSTA is clearly a rip-off. That fact doesn't mean that everything that is cheaper is good value, does it?
Which is not to say that I'm anti-carrier; far from it: indeed, I may well end up serving on one of them if they ever get into service. So your "adapt" comment is well wide of the mark I'm afraid. But for the good of the RN, I'd stop wasting money on the CVF programme.
S41
It strikes me (there's a word) that there is no consensus anywhere you go as to what the optimum focus of the Nation's defence needs ought to be.
I've read Lewis Page's book; Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, and while on the one hand he sees absolutley no use for Escorts and Frigates any longer, he believes that Carriers, Submarines and Mine Sweepers (his former speciality when in the Navy) are what the Royal Navy need to equip with in the future. Then again, he also points out the utter needlessness of the Eurofighter Typhoon!
I personally think, even as each of the services tries to make it's own subjective argument for a fair share of the shrinking defence budget- Lion's share in the Army's case-that the best we can do just now with as little as there is, is to spread the the rations as evenly as possible to try and cover every requirement?
FB
I've read Lewis Page's book; Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs, and while on the one hand he sees absolutley no use for Escorts and Frigates any longer, he believes that Carriers, Submarines and Mine Sweepers (his former speciality when in the Navy) are what the Royal Navy need to equip with in the future. Then again, he also points out the utter needlessness of the Eurofighter Typhoon!
I personally think, even as each of the services tries to make it's own subjective argument for a fair share of the shrinking defence budget- Lion's share in the Army's case-that the best we can do just now with as little as there is, is to spread the the rations as evenly as possible to try and cover every requirement?
FB