Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ares: What You Can Learn Reading (French) Parliamentary Reports
.......“We are actively working with our British counterparts on the project of a second aircraft carrier. At the same time, work on a purely national solution are continuing ... we are studying all options with no a priori.”.........
.......“We are actively working with our British counterparts on the project of a second aircraft carrier. At the same time, work on a purely national solution are continuing ... we are studying all options with no a priori.”.........
LO - the RN argued long and hard for CTOL JSF & for the carrier to be equipped to handle them. The report landed on the Ministers desk & BAe & R-R were in the Ministers Office like a shot, arguing that such a decison would be detrimental to the UK (ie their) aviation industry.
LO
While the thrust of your argument is probably correct, I can tell you for certain that CTOL carrier designs were looked at throughout the preconcept and concept phases - and beyond into assessment. The convertible carrier design (delta) was always maintained on the basis that Dave B always looked a tad dodgy.
Why the UK chose to persist with Dave B when all was clearly not well in terms of range / bring-back (hence the R*L!!!!) I suspect originated with the realisation in certain quarters that the rationale for 1(F), 3 and 4 sqdns was rapidly disappearing, post BAOR/RAFG and hence force structure was at risk. (Not in any way intended to denigrate the contribution of those sqns by the way, but in a world where the GR1/4 was the Op Deny Flight choice, there wasn't a huge amount of room for the GR5/7 force), not even given Balkan contribution.
STOVL and by definition carrier-based ops (even via the JFH concept) allowed survival. Oh the irony.............
While the thrust of your argument is probably correct, I can tell you for certain that CTOL carrier designs were looked at throughout the preconcept and concept phases - and beyond into assessment. The convertible carrier design (delta) was always maintained on the basis that Dave B always looked a tad dodgy.
Why the UK chose to persist with Dave B when all was clearly not well in terms of range / bring-back (hence the R*L!!!!) I suspect originated with the realisation in certain quarters that the rationale for 1(F), 3 and 4 sqdns was rapidly disappearing, post BAOR/RAFG and hence force structure was at risk. (Not in any way intended to denigrate the contribution of those sqns by the way, but in a world where the GR1/4 was the Op Deny Flight choice, there wasn't a huge amount of room for the GR5/7 force), not even given Balkan contribution.
STOVL and by definition carrier-based ops (even via the JFH concept) allowed survival. Oh the irony.............
Mr Boffin
Most interesting - I can see that technically the CATOBAR option had to be considered in the event that (1) the DoD/Congress would do a Skybolt on STOVL (to wit, internal decision for us, existential threat for you) or that (2) there would not be an F-35B follow-on within the life of the ships.
Politically it was different - the more it could be presented as a simple follow-on to CVS, the better.
Most interesting - I can see that technically the CATOBAR option had to be considered in the event that (1) the DoD/Congress would do a Skybolt on STOVL (to wit, internal decision for us, existential threat for you) or that (2) there would not be an F-35B follow-on within the life of the ships.
Politically it was different - the more it could be presented as a simple follow-on to CVS, the better.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LO
JJ - Have you heard of Hitchcock's "Maguffin"?
It's the element in a story that drives the plot, even though it might be almost forgotten at the end of it.
It's the element in a story that drives the plot, even though it might be almost forgotten at the end of it.
Another example might be the long forgotten rationalisation for re-engining the UK F4's with Speys, Allegedly to improve the 'bolter' performance. At one time ALL the UK Phantom's were going to be 'swing role', it was claimed - to be carrier capable. (although the bulk of the purchase, the F4Ms, did not have NLG extensions, etc)
To quote another great story teller, Mark Twain, "Reality, unlike fiction, doesn't have to make sense"
What view Mark Twain held on UK defence procurement is not recorded...
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Boffin,
That's a new one to me - I'm not convinced that the RAF gave a huge amount of consideration to survival of the Harrier Force (and a successor Harrier Force); more that the F-35B wasn't a direct competitor to DPOC (FOAC then FOAS then DPOC.)
F-35C was. Keep the STOVL variant, keep another manned aircraft flown exclusively by the RAF alive.
Choose F-35C, take the risk that not only was 50% of the Force to be flown by the RN, the F-35C would be a very strong competitor and tick sufficient/all the DPOC requirement boxes.
So DPOC = F-35C and, saints alive, it can be flown from sea.
Knowing that the UK was flush for expensive aircraft and that at least 1 defence review was going to happen between then and final variant slection, survival of the Tornado Force follow-on was more likely the motivation.
I wonder how many senior officers in one of our services will ever refer to the F-35C as a 'Carrier Variant'? Not many.
That's a new one to me - I'm not convinced that the RAF gave a huge amount of consideration to survival of the Harrier Force (and a successor Harrier Force); more that the F-35B wasn't a direct competitor to DPOC (FOAC then FOAS then DPOC.)
F-35C was. Keep the STOVL variant, keep another manned aircraft flown exclusively by the RAF alive.
Choose F-35C, take the risk that not only was 50% of the Force to be flown by the RN, the F-35C would be a very strong competitor and tick sufficient/all the DPOC requirement boxes.
So DPOC = F-35C and, saints alive, it can be flown from sea.
Knowing that the UK was flush for expensive aircraft and that at least 1 defence review was going to happen between then and final variant slection, survival of the Tornado Force follow-on was more likely the motivation.
I wonder how many senior officers in one of our services will ever refer to the F-35C as a 'Carrier Variant'? Not many.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today PM Cameron again invited close scruitiny of the Aircraft Carrier contract. Seemed rather strange as on 15 November Peter Luff, his own Under Secretary of State for Defence stated in response to a written question that:-
"The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work agreed when the previous Government entered into arrangements to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. As such, the Government are not presently convinced that an inquiry into the negotiating process leading to the carrier contract is needed. We will be reviewing the future of the relevant sector strategy as part of the consultation process the Ministry of Defence will launch next month leading to a White Paper on Defence and Security Industry and Technology policy in spring 2011."
I am happy someone knew the answer but perhaps he should remind the Boss
"The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work agreed when the previous Government entered into arrangements to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. As such, the Government are not presently convinced that an inquiry into the negotiating process leading to the carrier contract is needed. We will be reviewing the future of the relevant sector strategy as part of the consultation process the Ministry of Defence will launch next month leading to a White Paper on Defence and Security Industry and Technology policy in spring 2011."
I am happy someone knew the answer but perhaps he should remind the Boss
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
1. Rule No1: The boss is never wrong.
2. Rule No1: in the event the boss is wrong, Rule No1 applies.
It may be taken Mr Luff misspoke, unaware of the recent change in policy.
2. Rule No1: in the event the boss is wrong, Rule No1 applies.
It may be taken Mr Luff misspoke, unaware of the recent change in policy.
Last edited by ORAC; 18th Nov 2010 at 18:02. Reason: sp
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac
Mr Luff will need to alter the entry in Hansard then as it was a Parliamentary written answer to a question from a Conservative Party colleague
Mr Luff will need to alter the entry in Hansard then as it was a Parliamentary written answer to a question from a Conservative Party colleague
the Government are not presently convinced
That the new information is nothing more than Mr Luff and the ministerial team at MoD learning that the PM is minded to think an inquiry is a good idea is neither here nor there. Sir Humphrey would approve of the careful wording in that answer...
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the current issue of Air Force magazine. Aircraft carriers? Who needs 'em?, at least in AF Mag.
November 2010
Airpower Over Water
By Rebecca Grant
,,,
For its part, the US is fully engaged with Air Force and Navy teams working all aspects of the new AirSea Battle concept of operations. Fulfilling the maritime control mission has led to a bumper crop of new overwater surveillance aircraft, most operated by the US Navy. The Navy P-8 Poseidon, currently in flight test, will replace its P-3 Orion patrol airplanes. Global Hawk unmanned high-altitude aircraft with sensors modified for overwater operations will join the fleet for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance mission, also known as BAMS. Smaller UAVs such as ScanEagle already supplement maritime surveillance.
...
The Coast Guard uses HC-130Js like the one flying below the HC-130 for maritime domain awareness. (USCG photo by Dave Silva)
,,,
Bombers are now continuously forward deployed to Guam to deter potential adversaries and reassure allies. "B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s have each taken turns as a continuous sentinel for the Pacific Theater," said Col. Charles Patnaude, as bombers from 5th Bomb Wing, Minot AFB, N.D., were preparing to deploy in summer 2010.
,,,
The big picture in the Pacific centers on China’s 260-ship Navy, which includes 75 warships and about 60 submarines. "China has invested decades in a patient and aggressive campaign to slowly push other countries out of the East China Sea and South China Sea," said James Kraska in The Diplomat in spring 2010. Confrontations at sea over rocky islands and reefs have been occurring since the 1970s, and there are many recorded incidents of Chinese ships harassing US and allied vessels.
Finding, tracking, and attacking ships remains a key deterrent ability. For its part, the US Air Force will be providing the long-range surveillance and striking power over water for the foreseeable future.
Airpower Over Water
November 2010
Airpower Over Water
By Rebecca Grant
,,,
For its part, the US is fully engaged with Air Force and Navy teams working all aspects of the new AirSea Battle concept of operations. Fulfilling the maritime control mission has led to a bumper crop of new overwater surveillance aircraft, most operated by the US Navy. The Navy P-8 Poseidon, currently in flight test, will replace its P-3 Orion patrol airplanes. Global Hawk unmanned high-altitude aircraft with sensors modified for overwater operations will join the fleet for the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance mission, also known as BAMS. Smaller UAVs such as ScanEagle already supplement maritime surveillance.
...
The Coast Guard uses HC-130Js like the one flying below the HC-130 for maritime domain awareness. (USCG photo by Dave Silva)
,,,
Bombers are now continuously forward deployed to Guam to deter potential adversaries and reassure allies. "B-52s, B-1s, and B-2s have each taken turns as a continuous sentinel for the Pacific Theater," said Col. Charles Patnaude, as bombers from 5th Bomb Wing, Minot AFB, N.D., were preparing to deploy in summer 2010.
,,,
The big picture in the Pacific centers on China’s 260-ship Navy, which includes 75 warships and about 60 submarines. "China has invested decades in a patient and aggressive campaign to slowly push other countries out of the East China Sea and South China Sea," said James Kraska in The Diplomat in spring 2010. Confrontations at sea over rocky islands and reefs have been occurring since the 1970s, and there are many recorded incidents of Chinese ships harassing US and allied vessels.
Finding, tracking, and attacking ships remains a key deterrent ability. For its part, the US Air Force will be providing the long-range surveillance and striking power over water for the foreseeable future.
Airpower Over Water
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Hmm, a hint, or a not so subtle plea, to HM.....
Torygraph: HMS Ark Royal: Their final mission
.........While it could take until the end of the decade before the two new aircraft carriers currently under construction are fully operational, there is already talk within Navy circles of renaming one of them Ark Royal in order to maintain this most noble of naval traditions. At present the plan is to name the new carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. But senior officers point out that 30 years ago Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother intervened to ensure that the new Invincible-class carrier was named Ark Royal.....
Torygraph: HMS Ark Royal: Their final mission
.........While it could take until the end of the decade before the two new aircraft carriers currently under construction are fully operational, there is already talk within Navy circles of renaming one of them Ark Royal in order to maintain this most noble of naval traditions. At present the plan is to name the new carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. But senior officers point out that 30 years ago Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother intervened to ensure that the new Invincible-class carrier was named Ark Royal.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ark Royal?
It should be called "Ark of the Covenant" to celebrate the fact that, by the time the thig is operational, it will almost certainly have been discovered.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone see that letter in the Independent last week from an Armed Force minister? he seemed to believe that the JSF and CCVS would enter service at the same time (Might do but there won't be anyone flying them) and that the CVS would remain in service for 50 years....I spilt my coffee laughing
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think changing QE or PoW to the ARK is a very good idea. If you do that, Joe/Josephine Public will simply believe that the Queen is on her throne, the lords are in their Admiralty and all is well in the Heavens. They need to feel that we really are up poo creek and they really have lost something.
ARK was for the breakers as soon as the first CVS contract was signed. This "anguish" over "loss" was inevitable so why didn't some bright bugger think of that then?
ARK was for the breakers as soon as the first CVS contract was signed. This "anguish" over "loss" was inevitable so why didn't some bright bugger think of that then?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Carriers - The Truth?
This explains a lot!
That Aircraft Carrier Decision Explained - Guy Fawkes' blog
Not for Fishheads Lacking a sense of humour!!
That Aircraft Carrier Decision Explained - Guy Fawkes' blog
Not for Fishheads Lacking a sense of humour!!
Suspicion breeds confidence
I've been speaking to some RN folks about the cats and traps options for CVF. Understandably HM Treasury has a strong desire not to spend money abroad if at all possibly. A decision on the cats will not be made until the EMCAT system has been scaled up and fully tested. The arrestor system is more interesting. In theory, the EMCAT technology allows you to do both, but only the launch system has made it off the drawing board.
We do have a major player in this space in the form of Mc Taggart Scott. They are no longer in the catapult business but they do still make arrestor gear.
MacTaggart Scott - Engineering Innovation. - - -
Perhaps an updated version of the system fitted to the old Ark isa low risk, low cost option?
We do have a major player in this space in the form of Mc Taggart Scott. They are no longer in the catapult business but they do still make arrestor gear.
MacTaggart Scott - Engineering Innovation. - - -
Perhaps an updated version of the system fitted to the old Ark isa low risk, low cost option?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the cost of the ships and buying a decent number of aircraft to fly off them, I can't think why the Treasury would quiver at the cost of sourcing catapults and arrestor gear abroad. As we need just one (or two in the dream scenario) systems, it must be quicker and cheaper to buy the US equipment being built for the CVN-21 rather than re-invent the wheel?
I seem to recall that MacTaggart Scott's Direct Acting Water Spray arrestor gear was only ever fitted to the previous Ark Royal. That gear was designed for CVA-01 the Fleet Carrier cancelled in 1966.
Carrier Strike has enough risky elements as it is. Adding another with a one off UK order for "cats and traps" is unlikely to be the low cost option! If cost is really an issue though, how about a mixed order for Super Hornets but fewer F-35C's with the former primarily at sea and the latter only deployed for training and then as and when required.
I seem to recall that MacTaggart Scott's Direct Acting Water Spray arrestor gear was only ever fitted to the previous Ark Royal. That gear was designed for CVA-01 the Fleet Carrier cancelled in 1966.
Carrier Strike has enough risky elements as it is. Adding another with a one off UK order for "cats and traps" is unlikely to be the low cost option! If cost is really an issue though, how about a mixed order for Super Hornets but fewer F-35C's with the former primarily at sea and the latter only deployed for training and then as and when required.
So as not to detract from the Sharkey / Harriers bonkers threads I post these links into here because, after all, WEBF keeps telling us
BBC News - Aircraft carriers cost rises by at least £1bn
BBC - Peston's Picks
So where exactly is this £1Bn-£2Bn going to come from? Are we going to buy less F35C? Are the RN going to lose more boats?
It could be argued that as the carriers are now costing more additional money that they are as much an option for the chop as anything else.
And for a bit of minor banter .....
How are the RN going to blame the RAF for this cost growth ...?
And doesn't £1Bn-£2Bn buy you an awful lot of hotel rooms and pizza in Italy ....?
And I can't believe I beat WEBF to this post. I mean, he always posts any link, however vague, that mentions the future carrier within seconds of it appearing. Need to check your Google Alerts....
Perhaps the BBC are not considered a reliable source. Must check out Sharkeys blog, or The Sun - bound to be something on there about it 
This thread is intended to be a focal point for discussing issues relating to the RN's future aircraft carriers and the aircraft that they will carry (JCA/JSF/F35, Merlin, MASC and others)
BBC - Peston's Picks
So where exactly is this £1Bn-£2Bn going to come from? Are we going to buy less F35C? Are the RN going to lose more boats?
It could be argued that as the carriers are now costing more additional money that they are as much an option for the chop as anything else.
And for a bit of minor banter .....
How are the RN going to blame the RAF for this cost growth ...?
And doesn't £1Bn-£2Bn buy you an awful lot of hotel rooms and pizza in Italy ....?
And I can't believe I beat WEBF to this post. I mean, he always posts any link, however vague, that mentions the future carrier within seconds of it appearing. Need to check your Google Alerts....
Perhaps the BBC are not considered a reliable source. Must check out Sharkeys blog, or The Sun - bound to be something on there about it