Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel,
Sadly, the future of the RN is CVF and its strike capability. Without a central core of capability the requirement for frigates, destroyers, subs etc pales into insignificance and such ships will be decimated to but a very few. The amphib force does not provide such a capability even though it does fulfil the politicians requirement for "expeditionary". If ever a conflict (over resources) against a major state (India, China, Japan) occurs he without a CV capability may find himself in a difficult position - the Army and wider Air Force will not be much use in the early days of diplomacy and fevered politicking - and the US may not be overly keen to provide us with the support we need.
I am all for strong forces of all colours, but when there is no major conflict occurring to keep the Army busy (and Afghanistan will not last for too many more years) it has always been the RN that has provided the Government with the tools to achieve their wider aims.
Finningley,
I can think of no-one in the RN who gives any credence to words uttered by Lewis Page or his book. Sadly the media still turn to him for comment.
Sadly, the future of the RN is CVF and its strike capability. Without a central core of capability the requirement for frigates, destroyers, subs etc pales into insignificance and such ships will be decimated to but a very few. The amphib force does not provide such a capability even though it does fulfil the politicians requirement for "expeditionary". If ever a conflict (over resources) against a major state (India, China, Japan) occurs he without a CV capability may find himself in a difficult position - the Army and wider Air Force will not be much use in the early days of diplomacy and fevered politicking - and the US may not be overly keen to provide us with the support we need.
I am all for strong forces of all colours, but when there is no major conflict occurring to keep the Army busy (and Afghanistan will not last for too many more years) it has always been the RN that has provided the Government with the tools to achieve their wider aims.
Finningley,
I can think of no-one in the RN who gives any credence to words uttered by Lewis Page or his book. Sadly the media still turn to him for comment.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Lewis Page writes utter tripe. He made it to the giddy heights of commanding a minesweeper and therefore would not have had the training to make informed comment on matters beyond that. He makes money out of selling column inches which is picked up by the defence ignorant press.
I'm certainly not a torch carrier for Mr Page's opinions. However, he is interesting to read. I don't think advancing no further than command of a mine sweeper is sufficient reason to dismiss his work either. But I will agree with you all on one point, because he takes an often radical view of defence concerns, he is bound to attract the media, who regardless of the colour of their respective political stripe will always pay attention to someone who snaps at the heels of perceived tradition. By making suggestions like frigates, High Performance-Land based-interceptors and Field Artillery are all surplus to requirements, oh and he's also suggested the R.A.F's air combat capability should be carrier-based. This is in part to do with his resentment of the perceived relative comfort of those who wear the light blue.
Seems to me he's in the Army camp of wanting to see the end of the R.A.F. as an independent force?!?!?
FB
Seems to me he's in the Army camp of wanting to see the end of the R.A.F. as an independent force?!?!?
FB
Thread Starter
Navaleye
Don't think he ever got above Lieutenant rank to be honest, he threw his teddy out of his pram when told that a)the Navy was unwilling to change the system just for him and b)they couldn't change the laws of Physics (which is writings tend to ignore). I often wonder how he got through the AIB and BRNC. Then did he have his eyes closed during operations and exercises? How does he propose that all the frigate/destroyer roles and deployments are performed without frigates and destroyers?
His latest idea is to replace frigates with merchant vessels with lashed up weapons. No need for properly integrated weapons and sensors. Reduced Radar Cross Section? Nah! Quiet propulsion? Que? Survivability? Damage Control? I cannot bring myself to post a link to this rubbish, although this thread on Rum Ration (I'm not on there) may be of interest. Note the comments by our own MM.
But hey, he says he is an expert on all things defence, so he must be. Likewise Max Hastings, and many others.
S41
The escorts aren't cheap..
The escorts being the frigates and destroyers that would been needed anyway as they make up the bulk of the Fleet.
Don't think he ever got above Lieutenant rank to be honest, he threw his teddy out of his pram when told that a)the Navy was unwilling to change the system just for him and b)they couldn't change the laws of Physics (which is writings tend to ignore). I often wonder how he got through the AIB and BRNC. Then did he have his eyes closed during operations and exercises? How does he propose that all the frigate/destroyer roles and deployments are performed without frigates and destroyers?
His latest idea is to replace frigates with merchant vessels with lashed up weapons. No need for properly integrated weapons and sensors. Reduced Radar Cross Section? Nah! Quiet propulsion? Que? Survivability? Damage Control? I cannot bring myself to post a link to this rubbish, although this thread on Rum Ration (I'm not on there) may be of interest. Note the comments by our own MM.
But hey, he says he is an expert on all things defence, so he must be. Likewise Max Hastings, and many others.
S41
The escorts aren't cheap..
The escorts being the frigates and destroyers that would been needed anyway as they make up the bulk of the Fleet.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
Try as I might, I just cannot refrain from pointing out that whilst Mr Page only made Lt, you failed to get to Dartmouth (it ain't exactly Oxbridge) and then, as if that wasn't enough, actually failed Raleigh!
I have no problem with you being opinionated, (well, maybe a little) but to denigrate him for having opinions without the credibility born of experience is a bit rich.
Try as I might, I just cannot refrain from pointing out that whilst Mr Page only made Lt, you failed to get to Dartmouth (it ain't exactly Oxbridge) and then, as if that wasn't enough, actually failed Raleigh!
I have no problem with you being opinionated, (well, maybe a little) but to denigrate him for having opinions without the credibility born of experience is a bit rich.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lewis Page
Yes, there may well be a lot of "rubbish" in Page's writing but he also highlights a great deal that is wrong with UK defence plc. for example: the bloated ranks of senior officers in relation to those at the sharp end (do we really need a Vice Admiral to be the MoD's estate agent in chief?); the cost of the "Westland" Apache compared with the "off the shelf" original; the lack of the best kit (the saga of the SA80; still using the 105mm light gun when everyone else is moving to the new British designed light weight 155mm weapon). Without Page and his book would these and many other issues ever have reached the wider public? However proud we may be of a particular Service or unit, in this age of spin and focus groups the many horrors and disasters that lay hidden will remain ignored unless the light of publicity is shone on them.
Ah yes, Page and the Westland Apache.
The Apache that can.
The Apache that can fly in the Afghan summer with a decent load, without removing the Longbow, and that can do so with a couple of bootnecks clinging on the outside. The Apache that even the US Army envy.
What a scandal....
Page is a c*ck.
The Apache that can.
The Apache that can fly in the Afghan summer with a decent load, without removing the Longbow, and that can do so with a couple of bootnecks clinging on the outside. The Apache that even the US Army envy.
What a scandal....
Page is a c*ck.
Thread Starter
Tourist
Fair comment. However, I did not criticise (or at least didn't intend to) because he hasn't done X, Y, or Z, but rather I meant that I don't understand how he avoided learning about those things at BRNC and in subsequent appointments. My comment that he only made Lt was a direct reply to Navaleye's previous comments.
Perhaps if he had managed to keep his teddy in the pram, he would of got a MCMV to command. Perhaps his outlook would have been broadened? As I understand it, mine clearence operations in the Gulf in 1991 could only proceed once the missile boat threat had been eliminated (largely by RN Lynx from frigates and destroyers). Then there was the Silkworm that got splashed by HMS Gloucester. Given that he served in the 90s, I don't understand why he thinks MCMVs don't need to be escorted.
As for myself, my modest involvement with things RN/defence didn't start at the AIB, nor did it end when it became clear that a career in the regular RN was a non starter. I feel a little annoyed by suggestions that a merchant vessel can be armed and do a frigate's job. It shows ignorance of the need for integration and testing of weapons and the like, as well as other things. With respect to current activities, I know a few people who have given first hand accounts of being involved counter piracy operations involving RFAs and they have commented on the fact that an RFA cannot do a frigate's job. Not so much because of the lack of Sea Wolf, Harpoon, or the 4.5" gun, but because of the slower speed and lack of command/control facilities.
I never criticise anyone for commenting on things they may lack first hand experience of - stones and glass houses. I do get upset, however, by people who cannot accept that usually things are done for a reason.
Fair comment. However, I did not criticise (or at least didn't intend to) because he hasn't done X, Y, or Z, but rather I meant that I don't understand how he avoided learning about those things at BRNC and in subsequent appointments. My comment that he only made Lt was a direct reply to Navaleye's previous comments.
Perhaps if he had managed to keep his teddy in the pram, he would of got a MCMV to command. Perhaps his outlook would have been broadened? As I understand it, mine clearence operations in the Gulf in 1991 could only proceed once the missile boat threat had been eliminated (largely by RN Lynx from frigates and destroyers). Then there was the Silkworm that got splashed by HMS Gloucester. Given that he served in the 90s, I don't understand why he thinks MCMVs don't need to be escorted.
As for myself, my modest involvement with things RN/defence didn't start at the AIB, nor did it end when it became clear that a career in the regular RN was a non starter. I feel a little annoyed by suggestions that a merchant vessel can be armed and do a frigate's job. It shows ignorance of the need for integration and testing of weapons and the like, as well as other things. With respect to current activities, I know a few people who have given first hand accounts of being involved counter piracy operations involving RFAs and they have commented on the fact that an RFA cannot do a frigate's job. Not so much because of the lack of Sea Wolf, Harpoon, or the 4.5" gun, but because of the slower speed and lack of command/control facilities.
I never criticise anyone for commenting on things they may lack first hand experience of - stones and glass houses. I do get upset, however, by people who cannot accept that usually things are done for a reason.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Apr 2010 at 23:08.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't in the Navy either, but am aware of their systems and ships; I did a TINY bit to help during the rush to properly equip Sea Harriers in 1982.
I find it offensive that someone should say " you didn't get to Dartmouth " etc, when people outside the service are sometimes well placed to comment, and don't have to brown-nose their life agreeing with rubbish !
It is blindingly obvious that we need more than 6 Type 45's, also why the hell are Type 23's being sold off ?!
If the CVF and F-35* are going to have any future ( with the RN rather than being sold off pronto, Thatcher style ) it / they will need significant escorts.
* Hands up all those who reckon the CVF, if ever in RN hands, is host to Harriers for quite a while...There is the story that Sea Harrier FA2's at Culdrose could be pressed into service if the balloon went up; well I hope the aircraft and pilots are given time for plenty of training !!!
The only use of a merchant ship I've seen which made any sense was the old 1983ish idea of using container ships with BAe SCADS - Shipborne Containerised Aircraft Defense Sytem.
This involved taking a ( pre-warned & aware ) container ship, putting on a sheet metal flight deck, and containers around the sides - think of a souped-up Atlantic Conveyor - including containers with defesive aids and Command & Control sytems, with a squadron of Sea Harriers.
Obviously this lot would need a work-up as quickly as poss', it wouldn't be an overnight wiring job !
This, coupled with the ' Skyhook ' system designed by Harrier Chief Test Pilot Heinz Frick, which would allow picket warships to refuel, re-arm and carry Sea Harriers ready for launch ( F-35 might be a bit heavy ! ) would seem to be what's trendily known as a force multiplier...
It's so obvious the Navy is being decimated - I would say the RAF can get by happily but should push for Tranche 2+ Typhoons - as in the current war we don't need a Navy or Fleet Air Arm ( know the FAA pilots & groundcrew have done a brilliant job ) - when are the politicians going to learn, modern warfare doesn't allow time to build things or ramp up, it's strictly ' run what you've brung ' !
DZ
P.S,
India a potential enemy ? Unless someone knows more than me - not difficult - I thought they were regarded as good guys ?!
I find it offensive that someone should say " you didn't get to Dartmouth " etc, when people outside the service are sometimes well placed to comment, and don't have to brown-nose their life agreeing with rubbish !
It is blindingly obvious that we need more than 6 Type 45's, also why the hell are Type 23's being sold off ?!
If the CVF and F-35* are going to have any future ( with the RN rather than being sold off pronto, Thatcher style ) it / they will need significant escorts.
* Hands up all those who reckon the CVF, if ever in RN hands, is host to Harriers for quite a while...There is the story that Sea Harrier FA2's at Culdrose could be pressed into service if the balloon went up; well I hope the aircraft and pilots are given time for plenty of training !!!
The only use of a merchant ship I've seen which made any sense was the old 1983ish idea of using container ships with BAe SCADS - Shipborne Containerised Aircraft Defense Sytem.
This involved taking a ( pre-warned & aware ) container ship, putting on a sheet metal flight deck, and containers around the sides - think of a souped-up Atlantic Conveyor - including containers with defesive aids and Command & Control sytems, with a squadron of Sea Harriers.
Obviously this lot would need a work-up as quickly as poss', it wouldn't be an overnight wiring job !
This, coupled with the ' Skyhook ' system designed by Harrier Chief Test Pilot Heinz Frick, which would allow picket warships to refuel, re-arm and carry Sea Harriers ready for launch ( F-35 might be a bit heavy ! ) would seem to be what's trendily known as a force multiplier...
It's so obvious the Navy is being decimated - I would say the RAF can get by happily but should push for Tranche 2+ Typhoons - as in the current war we don't need a Navy or Fleet Air Arm ( know the FAA pilots & groundcrew have done a brilliant job ) - when are the politicians going to learn, modern warfare doesn't allow time to build things or ramp up, it's strictly ' run what you've brung ' !
DZ
P.S,
India a potential enemy ? Unless someone knows more than me - not difficult - I thought they were regarded as good guys ?!
Please God not Skyhook - an idea that makes even Rolling Vertical Landings look safe and well thought out......
Apart from being well past barking, would you really want to fly under something in poor viz or at night within 20-30ft of a ship that (because its relatively small) is moving significantly and only 20ft or so over the oggin? Also has the minor drawback of completely compromising the topside design of the ship and diluting the economies of scale you get with a proper carrier. There's a reason current DD/FF are much bigger than their predecessors - and it ain't stability. Skyhook-type thinking leads inevitably towards even bigger ships that will look even more costly.
Last heard of round about 2004 with a bloke from BAE suggesting it might form the basis of a solid RAS system for transferring containers full of vittles etc between ships. One system on each ship swapping the container somewhere over the sea between them. Why did'nt that catch on....?
As for SCADS I have the brochures BAE produced lurking somewhere in boxes - the only time it came anywhere near reality was RFA Reliant whose hangar I gather was somewhat less than weathertight, although at least we had a helicopter carrier for a couple of years after Engadine before Argus was converted.
Apart from being well past barking, would you really want to fly under something in poor viz or at night within 20-30ft of a ship that (because its relatively small) is moving significantly and only 20ft or so over the oggin? Also has the minor drawback of completely compromising the topside design of the ship and diluting the economies of scale you get with a proper carrier. There's a reason current DD/FF are much bigger than their predecessors - and it ain't stability. Skyhook-type thinking leads inevitably towards even bigger ships that will look even more costly.
Last heard of round about 2004 with a bloke from BAE suggesting it might form the basis of a solid RAS system for transferring containers full of vittles etc between ships. One system on each ship swapping the container somewhere over the sea between them. Why did'nt that catch on....?
As for SCADS I have the brochures BAE produced lurking somewhere in boxes - the only time it came anywhere near reality was RFA Reliant whose hangar I gather was somewhat less than weathertight, although at least we had a helicopter carrier for a couple of years after Engadine before Argus was converted.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Skyhook idea was not " barking ", I saw it being done on Dunsfold's trial crane many times - did you ?
I agree it would be tricky at night in a lumpy sea, but with suitable guiding low intensity lights I ( not a pilot ) would still fancy that compared to 'crash landing' a Phantom or similar on a carrier...
Harrier Chief Test Pilots do not come up with mad ideas...the rubber mat & vampire tried by Eric 'Winkle' Brown you mention has always struck me as exactly that !
The only real drawback with Skyhook was if one went whole-hog on the concept, it might involve deleting the undercarriage & it's strengthening, to allow more weapons/ fuel carriage in the hover ( as it is, more than one Harrier has done a VL without wheels, and a certain display pilot did a magnificent RVL touch & go gear up, to the delight of many photographers if not his boss...
However that's going by brochure figures ( a problem the Harrier had was that thrust/weight is what everyone will look for first, while its traditional or obligatory to keep max thrust a secret ) - I've seen FRS2's, as then known, and a lot heavier than an FRS1, hover for quite a while, carrying ' impossible' loads...When I asked someone in the know about this, he grudgingly agreed there was a lot more thrust available than advertised.
Perhaps John Farley or Michael Pryce, if by any chance reading this, might like to comment.
I do know the latter mailed me performance graphs of the Pegasus, which went way beyond ' official ' figures.
If you should happen to put 'Harrier history' into a search engine, then scroll down to 'Harrier Testing' there's a little more on this - I checked figures with M.Pryce as I wrote it ( subsequently to be mangled grammar-wise, and a couple of mistakes by self - it was Duncan Simpson, not Neville Duke who tried to save Chuck Rosberg - but he reckoned I was on the low side re. max thrust ).
As you mention stability, I play with small yacts a lot of the time, and know what you mean; I think a Sea Harrier would be tolerable ( probably with limits as to the conditions ) but an F-35 will be a different matter, twice the weight, though I'm sure money will be thrown at it so things like RVL's or indeed skyhook will be quite feasible in service.
Maybe the trimaran warship project, Trident, had this in mind ?...
As for SCADS, it's a great idea, as long as the fit includes CIWS, the only drawback being the short runway and no ( or rather, difficult to manufacture as a bolt-on quickie, Ski Ramp ).
There are ways around the latter, as the Royal Engineers could tell you.
I agree it would be tricky at night in a lumpy sea, but with suitable guiding low intensity lights I ( not a pilot ) would still fancy that compared to 'crash landing' a Phantom or similar on a carrier...
Harrier Chief Test Pilots do not come up with mad ideas...the rubber mat & vampire tried by Eric 'Winkle' Brown you mention has always struck me as exactly that !
The only real drawback with Skyhook was if one went whole-hog on the concept, it might involve deleting the undercarriage & it's strengthening, to allow more weapons/ fuel carriage in the hover ( as it is, more than one Harrier has done a VL without wheels, and a certain display pilot did a magnificent RVL touch & go gear up, to the delight of many photographers if not his boss...
However that's going by brochure figures ( a problem the Harrier had was that thrust/weight is what everyone will look for first, while its traditional or obligatory to keep max thrust a secret ) - I've seen FRS2's, as then known, and a lot heavier than an FRS1, hover for quite a while, carrying ' impossible' loads...When I asked someone in the know about this, he grudgingly agreed there was a lot more thrust available than advertised.
Perhaps John Farley or Michael Pryce, if by any chance reading this, might like to comment.
I do know the latter mailed me performance graphs of the Pegasus, which went way beyond ' official ' figures.
If you should happen to put 'Harrier history' into a search engine, then scroll down to 'Harrier Testing' there's a little more on this - I checked figures with M.Pryce as I wrote it ( subsequently to be mangled grammar-wise, and a couple of mistakes by self - it was Duncan Simpson, not Neville Duke who tried to save Chuck Rosberg - but he reckoned I was on the low side re. max thrust ).
As you mention stability, I play with small yacts a lot of the time, and know what you mean; I think a Sea Harrier would be tolerable ( probably with limits as to the conditions ) but an F-35 will be a different matter, twice the weight, though I'm sure money will be thrown at it so things like RVL's or indeed skyhook will be quite feasible in service.
Maybe the trimaran warship project, Trident, had this in mind ?...
As for SCADS, it's a great idea, as long as the fit includes CIWS, the only drawback being the short runway and no ( or rather, difficult to manufacture as a bolt-on quickie, Ski Ramp ).
There are ways around the latter, as the Royal Engineers could tell you.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The problem with Skyhook was that it would have required a whole new class of ship with their crews. While it worked it was a very inefficient of deploying air power at sea. I don't recall any enthusiasm for it amongst the top brass . It was a step too far.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The problem with Skyhook was that it would have required a whole new class of ship with their crews. While it worked it was a very inefficient of deploying air power at sea. I don't recall any enthusiasm for it amongst the top brass . It was a step too far.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye,
Top brass have always been the last place to go with any new idea, surely ?!
I don't see any need for ' a whole new class of warship ', just modification with the space-stabilised arm, and the ability for picket ships to deploy fighters doesn't seem inefficient to me; sad to say it would have been jolly handy in 1982, and in any war we should end up in.
Not least, the chaps wearing black hats might not bother a warship if they think it even may be carrying a fighter...I know the ship's helo will have to be able to go about it's business, so a close in ( less heeling moment ) stowage and maybe even ballast tank modifications may be required, but ' a whole new class ' sounds a bit like either someone desperately trying to get more ships, or more likely just trying to quash the idea.
As it is, I despair when I see modern RN warships with hull plating a good rifle could penetrate, and always only ONE of each weapon system; history has shown that if used in actual war not cocktail parties, warships for some strange reason take hits and near misses...
Top brass have always been the last place to go with any new idea, surely ?!
I don't see any need for ' a whole new class of warship ', just modification with the space-stabilised arm, and the ability for picket ships to deploy fighters doesn't seem inefficient to me; sad to say it would have been jolly handy in 1982, and in any war we should end up in.
Not least, the chaps wearing black hats might not bother a warship if they think it even may be carrying a fighter...I know the ship's helo will have to be able to go about it's business, so a close in ( less heeling moment ) stowage and maybe even ballast tank modifications may be required, but ' a whole new class ' sounds a bit like either someone desperately trying to get more ships, or more likely just trying to quash the idea.
As it is, I despair when I see modern RN warships with hull plating a good rifle could penetrate, and always only ONE of each weapon system; history has shown that if used in actual war not cocktail parties, warships for some strange reason take hits and near misses...
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im sorry Double Zero but you sounds like you're wanting to go back to the days of armour plated battleships!! This worked so well with the slow Belgrano! Most armour could be defeated easily by modern day missiles, unless you want to put Chobham armour on all of our ships and even then it probably would'nt stand up to it!
Suspicion breeds confidence
DD,
You might change your mind when you see this. There's no space on a T42 for a crane let alone a Harrier. Fortunately no public money was pent on the idea.
SKYHOOK Harrier Carrier - The Royal Navy - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board Yuku
You might change your mind when you see this. There's no space on a T42 for a crane let alone a Harrier. Fortunately no public money was pent on the idea.
SKYHOOK Harrier Carrier - The Royal Navy - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - NavWeaps Discussion Boards - Message Board Yuku
DZ
Just because it was done on a trials crane at Dunsfold (no I didn't see it) does not make it feasible operationally (hence my linking it to RVL). I'm in no way trying to denigrate what the Harrier community did - far from it - but the bottom line is that much of what was dreamed up was largely to overcome the either the shortcomings of SHAR or the limited number of a/c (5) that CVS was "supposed" to operate, rather than a rational way to take aircraft to sea. Herr Frick would not appear to have flown operationally from ships and if he had, he may have had a different opinion - just because one can do something, does not make it a good idea. Even Eric Brown fell victim to that with the Flex-deck - an attempt to cure an issue that increased thrust, better aero dynamics and bigger ships would solve and which if implemented would have dramatically reduced the flexibility of naval airpower.
There are many good reasons why the Vosper Harrier Carriers and for that matter the USN "air-capable" Spruances, never made it beyond a concept, largely because there are much more efficient and cost-effective ways of operating aircraft at sea.
The point both Navaleye and I have been driving at is that such an arrangement is not a "bolt-on" - it fundamentally compromises the topside design of the ship, which leads inevitably to a new design. You would not believe just how much nausea people are going through, just to try and add a couple more boats (weight 2-3 te each) to T23 - again, stability is only a minor concern, there are much harder things to crack. Ballast tanks btw are not a feature of modern DD/FF, certainly not enough to correct the hundred or so tonne-metres of moment one would have to apply. Current warships are also built of much thicker plate than the racing-snake destroyers and frigates of old - Lloyds naval ship rules sees to that.
Finally, RV Triton (currently chasing Indonesian fishermen in Australian waters) was not aimed at that sort of problem. She was trying for a particular niche that was overtaken by events as ship size increased, largely driven by accommodation standards.
As I said, not having a pop, just trying to point out the realities of ship design.
Just because it was done on a trials crane at Dunsfold (no I didn't see it) does not make it feasible operationally (hence my linking it to RVL). I'm in no way trying to denigrate what the Harrier community did - far from it - but the bottom line is that much of what was dreamed up was largely to overcome the either the shortcomings of SHAR or the limited number of a/c (5) that CVS was "supposed" to operate, rather than a rational way to take aircraft to sea. Herr Frick would not appear to have flown operationally from ships and if he had, he may have had a different opinion - just because one can do something, does not make it a good idea. Even Eric Brown fell victim to that with the Flex-deck - an attempt to cure an issue that increased thrust, better aero dynamics and bigger ships would solve and which if implemented would have dramatically reduced the flexibility of naval airpower.
There are many good reasons why the Vosper Harrier Carriers and for that matter the USN "air-capable" Spruances, never made it beyond a concept, largely because there are much more efficient and cost-effective ways of operating aircraft at sea.
The point both Navaleye and I have been driving at is that such an arrangement is not a "bolt-on" - it fundamentally compromises the topside design of the ship, which leads inevitably to a new design. You would not believe just how much nausea people are going through, just to try and add a couple more boats (weight 2-3 te each) to T23 - again, stability is only a minor concern, there are much harder things to crack. Ballast tanks btw are not a feature of modern DD/FF, certainly not enough to correct the hundred or so tonne-metres of moment one would have to apply. Current warships are also built of much thicker plate than the racing-snake destroyers and frigates of old - Lloyds naval ship rules sees to that.
Finally, RV Triton (currently chasing Indonesian fishermen in Australian waters) was not aimed at that sort of problem. She was trying for a particular niche that was overtaken by events as ship size increased, largely driven by accommodation standards.
As I said, not having a pop, just trying to point out the realities of ship design.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 4th Apr 2010 at 19:36.
Just altering the train of conversation within the thread ever so slightly, would it not be best of all to build the two new carriers a foot or so longer! Then buy F35Cs to operate off of them instead of the B model?
I understand this would mean longer range and additional bad guy swatting goodies to stick on them?!
FB
I understand this would mean longer range and additional bad guy swatting goodies to stick on them?!
FB