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
Originally Posted by the funky munky
PS So what is the USMC going to do now as the only Dave-B customer?
Thread Starter
Unbelievable! Quite unusual for the Prime Minister to announce losing the next war..
Didn't the PM try to claim that Harrier can only be carrier based, and therefore is of no use in Afghanistan? He offered no justification for this decision other than stating the nothing unexpected is expected.
With the axing of Harrier and no fixed wing carrier aircraft for TEN years, how is the RN going to retain the skills to operate fixed wing aircraft? The pilots can go on exchange with the USN, but the flight deck crews cannot - how will they retain expertise of moving and working with jets on a flight deck? What about everyone else - it really is a whole ship task. How will up and coming RN officers learn about aviation? Go and read the first chapter of John Winton's book about the Fleet Air Arm in WW2 - Find, Fix, and Strike.
Also what happens if a crisis occurs in which we need a carrier? Are we going to ask the opponent to wait for a few years?
Not so long ago a certain General and advisor to the Tories on defence claimed certain capabilities can be placed in extended readiness and brought out when needed. Is this what is happening? Will the Harriers and CVS be mothballed? Stored? Or scrapped?
This has disturbing shades of John Nott's 1981 cuts - which caused us a huge amount of trouble post less than twelve months later. Don't reply saying how good things will be in ten years time, as I have severe doubts that we will get there unscathed. The promise of a defence review every five years means that CVF will be a target for future cuts - going ten years without carrier air will make it an easy option to cut.
Didn't the PM try to claim that Harrier can only be carrier based, and therefore is of no use in Afghanistan? He offered no justification for this decision other than stating the nothing unexpected is expected.
With the axing of Harrier and no fixed wing carrier aircraft for TEN years, how is the RN going to retain the skills to operate fixed wing aircraft? The pilots can go on exchange with the USN, but the flight deck crews cannot - how will they retain expertise of moving and working with jets on a flight deck? What about everyone else - it really is a whole ship task. How will up and coming RN officers learn about aviation? Go and read the first chapter of John Winton's book about the Fleet Air Arm in WW2 - Find, Fix, and Strike.
Also what happens if a crisis occurs in which we need a carrier? Are we going to ask the opponent to wait for a few years?
Not so long ago a certain General and advisor to the Tories on defence claimed certain capabilities can be placed in extended readiness and brought out when needed. Is this what is happening? Will the Harriers and CVS be mothballed? Stored? Or scrapped?
This has disturbing shades of John Nott's 1981 cuts - which caused us a huge amount of trouble post less than twelve months later. Don't reply saying how good things will be in ten years time, as I have severe doubts that we will get there unscathed. The promise of a defence review every five years means that CVF will be a target for future cuts - going ten years without carrier air will make it an easy option to cut.
WEBF
How would we fight this "next war" when we're embroiled in this "current war" until 2015 (at least)? I can't see us putting together a huge task force with "Lusty" or "Ocean" even if we had Harriers.
Why can't some FAA pilots fly Tornado or Typhoon in the interim? What about the guys on exchange with the USN, USMC and French Navy?
With 2015 in mind and QE due in 2016 then there is only a 1 year gap and depending on what Naval Strike Fighter options we now look at will dictate the other half of the equation.
How would we fight this "next war" when we're embroiled in this "current war" until 2015 (at least)? I can't see us putting together a huge task force with "Lusty" or "Ocean" even if we had Harriers.
Why can't some FAA pilots fly Tornado or Typhoon in the interim? What about the guys on exchange with the USN, USMC and French Navy?
With 2015 in mind and QE due in 2016 then there is only a 1 year gap and depending on what Naval Strike Fighter options we now look at will dictate the other half of the equation.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also what happens if a crisis occurs in which we need a carrier? Are we going to ask the opponent to wait for a few years?
What foe do you plan to fight, aside from those dastardly, fiendish Argies, this planets leading menace to civilization as we know it?
Will the UK defend Saudi A. from Eye-ran? Will the RN stand side by side -- pardon the inappropriate metaphor -- with the US Nav. in the Taiwan Straits or the Yellow Sea?
Or is the RN going to carry out a future United Nations mandate to break an Israeli air and sea blockade of the Gaza strip?
Please tell us what specific foe you intend to fight, aside from villainous Argentines or hi-tek Somali pirates.
What foe do you plan to fight, aside from those dastardly, fiendish Argies, this planets leading menace to civilization as we know it?
Will the UK defend Saudi A. from Eye-ran? Will the RN stand side by side -- pardon the inappropriate metaphor -- with the US Nav. in the Taiwan Straits or the Yellow Sea?
Or is the RN going to carry out a future United Nations mandate to break an Israeli air and sea blockade of the Gaza strip?
Please tell us what specific foe you intend to fight, aside from villainous Argentines or hi-tek Somali pirates.
Thread Starter
TBW/ME
I was talking about things out of the blue - you know, the things that have always dominated history.
I think that we can say that after Afghanistan, the next opponent will probably not be land locked. They might even have a navy or air force - maybe both. On which note, what if we end up fighting Al Qeada in a state that does have a coast (I'm not going to spell it out, but I have two in mind), and CAS is needed? To add to the problems, we are reducing our amphibious forces.
As to skill fade, I see that you concentrate on pilots, but ignored my point about everyone else involved in running a carrier's flying operations, like flight deck crews - the chockheads who need to be able to work safely on the flight deck, moving aircraft (engines running) around the deck in tight confines, the people on the Bridge keeping the ship heading the right direction for flying, the Marine Engineering types in the Ship Control Centre - maintaining trim for the benefit of flying, the operators and maintainers of various sensors and landing aids, ATC, Fighter Controllers, and more. We're not sending them on exchange.
The First Sea Lord has acknowledged that regenerating fixed wing carrier aviation in 2020 after a gap of this long will be an enormous challenge.
I was talking about things out of the blue - you know, the things that have always dominated history.
I think that we can say that after Afghanistan, the next opponent will probably not be land locked. They might even have a navy or air force - maybe both. On which note, what if we end up fighting Al Qeada in a state that does have a coast (I'm not going to spell it out, but I have two in mind), and CAS is needed? To add to the problems, we are reducing our amphibious forces.
As to skill fade, I see that you concentrate on pilots, but ignored my point about everyone else involved in running a carrier's flying operations, like flight deck crews - the chockheads who need to be able to work safely on the flight deck, moving aircraft (engines running) around the deck in tight confines, the people on the Bridge keeping the ship heading the right direction for flying, the Marine Engineering types in the Ship Control Centre - maintaining trim for the benefit of flying, the operators and maintainers of various sensors and landing aids, ATC, Fighter Controllers, and more. We're not sending them on exchange.
The First Sea Lord has acknowledged that regenerating fixed wing carrier aviation in 2020 after a gap of this long will be an enormous challenge.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th Oct 2010 at 08:14.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The challeng may indeed prove too difficult.
I am at a loss to undertsand why this non-sequitor of a carrier strike policy has come about. I do think HMG has scored some massive own goals with these announcements, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt given their ovrall ignorance of detailed defence issues, and reliance on the MoD staffing process to deliver these proposals.
Surely a more "Trenchard" like approach of maintaining at least a sliver of capability in all CVF related roles would have been achievable at a similar cost. In particular it is hard to believe that maintaining one op sqn of GR9s was not possible, no doubt at the expense of maybe at least one sqn of Tornado/Typhoon. This seems even more logical given the announcement that FCVF will only have a regular 12 ac JSF complement. The resulting maintainance of skills for CVF ops over the next 10 years, the continuance of VSTOL capability should we need it on-shore (never minds its continued use in Afghanistan) - all seem to have cried out for this - and the politicians would have had a more credible argument for their decisions!
There is no doubt a classified paper lurking in Main Building that will one day explain all...but probably to no one's satisfaction.
Ah Well......
I am at a loss to undertsand why this non-sequitor of a carrier strike policy has come about. I do think HMG has scored some massive own goals with these announcements, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt given their ovrall ignorance of detailed defence issues, and reliance on the MoD staffing process to deliver these proposals.
Surely a more "Trenchard" like approach of maintaining at least a sliver of capability in all CVF related roles would have been achievable at a similar cost. In particular it is hard to believe that maintaining one op sqn of GR9s was not possible, no doubt at the expense of maybe at least one sqn of Tornado/Typhoon. This seems even more logical given the announcement that FCVF will only have a regular 12 ac JSF complement. The resulting maintainance of skills for CVF ops over the next 10 years, the continuance of VSTOL capability should we need it on-shore (never minds its continued use in Afghanistan) - all seem to have cried out for this - and the politicians would have had a more credible argument for their decisions!
There is no doubt a classified paper lurking in Main Building that will one day explain all...but probably to no one's satisfaction.
Ah Well......
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What are the implications of a CTOL carrier without an angled deck?"
Not sure if you are being ironic or comical here. The CVF design has an extensive portside sponson (the left side as you face forwards towards the pointy bit that makes the waves go frothy). A bit of paint and viola! an angled deck appears by magic.
EMALs/EMCAT's will drop into existing tunnels in the flight deck. Not sure what happens to the traps, but I'm sure those cunning designers have thought of that already
Not sure if you are being ironic or comical here. The CVF design has an extensive portside sponson (the left side as you face forwards towards the pointy bit that makes the waves go frothy). A bit of paint and viola! an angled deck appears by magic.
EMALs/EMCAT's will drop into existing tunnels in the flight deck. Not sure what happens to the traps, but I'm sure those cunning designers have thought of that already
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I would have thought the 2 island design, and the aft lift behind the rear of the two, would make that a very, very tight squeeze...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Where was the MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath yesterday?
The CVS are being built in several shipyards. Please explain how it is cheaper to build different bits in different labour constituencies and ship them to his own for final assembly?
The CVS are being built in several shipyards. Please explain how it is cheaper to build different bits in different labour constituencies and ship them to his own for final assembly?
Ah, but PN, the reason it's being assembled in Rosyth is because Cyclops fannied about for years (~2002 to 2006) refusing to fund the ships because they were going to cost £3.2Bn, vice the budget (set for the 40000te concept ships in 1998) of £2.7Bn. During that time, the only other facilities capable of building that size of ship were shut or substantially downgraded (eg Swan Hunter, Harlands).
In all the arguments about the lock-in clause of the contract, people need to recognise the enormous pressure applied by Paul Drayson between 2006 and 2008 to get the remaning shipyards to merge (VT, BAE). Of course they were going to want some sort of guarantee back for that - the government and MoDs track record was not exactly inspiring.
Then don't forget that the programme was shifted two years right to fix an in-year overspend at the cost of £700M!
It would have been much easier cheaper and less grief to have understood and funded the change in original budget back in 2002/2003, although that wouldn't have fixed the obvious issue with tying in to a one-horse race for the aircraft......
In all the arguments about the lock-in clause of the contract, people need to recognise the enormous pressure applied by Paul Drayson between 2006 and 2008 to get the remaning shipyards to merge (VT, BAE). Of course they were going to want some sort of guarantee back for that - the government and MoDs track record was not exactly inspiring.
Then don't forget that the programme was shifted two years right to fix an in-year overspend at the cost of £700M!
It would have been much easier cheaper and less grief to have understood and funded the change in original budget back in 2002/2003, although that wouldn't have fixed the obvious issue with tying in to a one-horse race for the aircraft......
Gentleman Aviator
One is a little surprised to keep hearing the idea of "exchange posts with the USN" as a panacea to keep FAA FW currency.
The key is in the word "exchange" .........
OK Maverick, we'll send some FAA chaps (possibly even second generation war heroes
) to fly your F-18s and in return you can fly a pinger Merlin or (if you're quick!) a junglie SK!!!
You'll be fighting the Top Guns off with a Sh!tty stick ....NOT.
The key is in the word "exchange" .........
OK Maverick, we'll send some FAA chaps (possibly even second generation war heroes
) to fly your F-18s and in return you can fly a pinger Merlin or (if you're quick!) a junglie SK!!!You'll be fighting the Top Guns off with a Sh!tty stick ....NOT.
GK
Wouldn't be too sure about those Marine jets if I were you.
If you believe Ms Rosy Scenario, LockMart's accountant, the F-35A costs about as much as a Super Hornet.
F-35C cost has consistently been cited as 20-some per cent more than the A.
The B costs more than the C to buy and, according to UKG, 25 per cent more to operate.
The question about the Navy's army needing its own air force is getting asked.
Wouldn't be too sure about those Marine jets if I were you.
If you believe Ms Rosy Scenario, LockMart's accountant, the F-35A costs about as much as a Super Hornet.
F-35C cost has consistently been cited as 20-some per cent more than the A.
The B costs more than the C to buy and, according to UKG, 25 per cent more to operate.
The question about the Navy's army needing its own air force is getting asked.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
F-18 E/F: (flyaway) cost circa $60M.
Latest mult-yesr buy is for 124 jets for $5.3 billion dollars, which works out at $42.7 million each. That includes 58 EA-18G Growlers which are more expensive, so the FA-18E/Fs probably came in under $40m each.