Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wrath:
Cant help but think that Peston is being a tad disingenious where this is concerned.
Wasnt there something a few years ago about the costs being fiddled about with by the previous administration - something that would have the result of the whole project costing more later??
He goes on to mention something about the cancellation costs and what appears to be a difference between what MOD said it would cost to cancel the entire show and what was otherwise reported last year about how if it was cancelled that BAe would continue to get paid for the lifetime of the contract anyway.
The business about the change from one variant to another of the F35... considering this decision was made last year, why is Pesto suddenly beating his gums about it now, rather than then? Likewise the cat & trap costs?
Listening to Pesto's piece on Today, I'm afraid the cynic in me says that the right on liberal lefties at the BBC have really got the hump about yesterdays "calm down dear" incident, not to mention the up and coming elections and have unilaterally decided, not for the first time, to try and wind up the angry villagers to ensure the tories take a kicking at the ballot box. The Toady programme this morning may as well have been a Labour Party Election Broadcast.
politically neutral state broadcaster, my arse.....
Cant help but think that Peston is being a tad disingenious where this is concerned.
Wasnt there something a few years ago about the costs being fiddled about with by the previous administration - something that would have the result of the whole project costing more later??
He goes on to mention something about the cancellation costs and what appears to be a difference between what MOD said it would cost to cancel the entire show and what was otherwise reported last year about how if it was cancelled that BAe would continue to get paid for the lifetime of the contract anyway.
The business about the change from one variant to another of the F35... considering this decision was made last year, why is Pesto suddenly beating his gums about it now, rather than then? Likewise the cat & trap costs?
Listening to Pesto's piece on Today, I'm afraid the cynic in me says that the right on liberal lefties at the BBC have really got the hump about yesterdays "calm down dear" incident, not to mention the up and coming elections and have unilaterally decided, not for the first time, to try and wind up the angry villagers to ensure the tories take a kicking at the ballot box. The Toady programme this morning may as well have been a Labour Party Election Broadcast.
politically neutral state broadcaster, my arse.....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B*****cks to party politics....
No government has ever been able to control the excesses of the military industrial complex when it come to delivering contracts on time , on budget (and actually performing to spec) and no government ever will in our present society.
Just be content to take the p**s remorselessly as we watch the costs soar and the deadlines drift. Remember that most of the money will just circulate in the economy anyway...except or course for the few billion that gets siphoned off by the rich and powerful. That might irk a bit, but you can get over that by sc**ing the system at every opportunity youself. And of course more p*** taking, when then rich and powerful moralise and lecture us.
**** em all.
edited to add...
I'm not Peston's biggest fan, but if wants to throw a spotlight into the endlessly murky world of defence procurement, good for him.
No government has ever been able to control the excesses of the military industrial complex when it come to delivering contracts on time , on budget (and actually performing to spec) and no government ever will in our present society.
Just be content to take the p**s remorselessly as we watch the costs soar and the deadlines drift. Remember that most of the money will just circulate in the economy anyway...except or course for the few billion that gets siphoned off by the rich and powerful. That might irk a bit, but you can get over that by sc**ing the system at every opportunity youself. And of course more p*** taking, when then rich and powerful moralise and lecture us.
**** em all.
edited to add...
I'm not Peston's biggest fan, but if wants to throw a spotlight into the endlessly murky world of defence procurement, good for him.
Last edited by The Old Fat One; 28th Apr 2011 at 11:57.
So many of the innovations to aircraft carriers were British in origin....why not return the favor by using US made Cats and Arresting gear. They certainly are proved and well tested. Surely that would be cheaper than starting from scratch again.
But when do Guvmints ever care about spending tax payer's money!
But when do Guvmints ever care about spending tax payer's money!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost of Aircraft Carriers rises by £1 to 2 Billion
BBC News - Aircraft carriers cost rises by at least £1bn
Maybe Carrier Aviation isn't as cheap as some would have us believe. A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money
Maybe Carrier Aviation isn't as cheap as some would have us believe. A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Carrier Aviation isn't as cheap as some would have us believe.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that everyone with any intelligence knew long ago that stretching out the build schedule to lower the "per year" spend would increase the end total cost.
Add the two together, and you have the entire "cost increase" covered.
The Old Fat One, the entirety of this is due to the decisions made by the politicians... the "excesses of the military industrial complex" are, in this case, non-existent... except in your imagination.
This cost increase is 100% due to "politics"!
Add the two together, and you have the entire "cost increase" covered.
The Old Fat One, the entirety of this is due to the decisions made by the politicians... the "excesses of the military industrial complex" are, in this case, non-existent... except in your imagination.
This cost increase is 100% due to "politics"!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Old Fat One, the entirety of this is due to the decisions made by the politicians... the "excesses of the military industrial complex" are, in this case, non-existent... except in your imagination.
This cost increase is 100% due to "politics"!
This cost increase is 100% due to "politics"!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless, It was my understanding that the original design would enable the later addition of catapults and arrester gear if required? I wonder what happened to this and why it is now costing so much extra money to install them?
I suspect the reason that we are not buying american gear is that their current catapults require steam and plenty of it - a commodity that is not widely available on non-nuclear vessels.
I suspect the reason that we are not buying american gear is that their current catapults require steam and plenty of it - a commodity that is not widely available on non-nuclear vessels.
The design was set up to allow addition of cats and arrester gear, in a physical sense there is space and weight provision for them. However, buying them was not in the budget when Dave B was the aircraft of choice.
Now we want to fit them, the cost of the equipment itself needs to be added to the budget, plus the detailed design (ie drawings, test forms, tech pubs etc) and changes to the ships system configuration to accommodate them.
The options are pretty much as follows :
1. US "modern" option - the EMALS system (including a new electro-mag arresting system), to be fitted on USS Gerald Ford. Built by General Atomics, with the full-scale EMALS system in test right now at Navy Lakehurst. Should be relatively low-risk, guarantees compatibility with US logs systems over the next 50 yrs, should cover off all EM safety case issues with the US aircraft and doesn't require re-establishing steam training in Surflot. BUT - initial cap cost is high and the power take off from the QEC power control system is going to need some looking at (and that means software - gulp). YOu could possibly get away with just EMALS and conventional Mk7 Mod 4 arrester gear, but that depends whether the US set up their control system to balance loading over cat and trap. If they do, that option probably goes away.
2. UK "Modern" option. Converteam have been paid to look at an "EM Cat" system based on UK IP. Scares the bejeesus out of me frankly, as it took the US 15 years to get where they are now, with proper funding. Doing it the Brit way on a shoestring looks like a nightmare waiting to happen, but that's never stopped us before.........Can't wait for the estimate on testing for the EMI/EMC issues for the aircraft and weapons safety cases either!
3. Steam / Hydraulic option. US C-13-3 cats will still be supported for a few decades yet and it ain't exactly hi-tech, just tricky steam. The arrester gear is slightly more complex. Again the US Mk7 Mod 4 system will be around for a long time yet, with all the spares and tech pubs support that entails. However, McTaggart-Scott could still make an updated version of the DA2 system that all remember as being good. Question is, is it good enough to resurrect the design and support system, when you could buy "off the shelf?" There is then the small matter of finding a suitably-sized steam gen plant and more importantly, squeezing it and the steam supply pipework into the ship, which is really quite advanced in build now. Once they start stitching the units together next year, it really will start costing manhours to put the system in and that's why the cost estimate is so high and the "error band" so large. You'll also have to get properly trained steam engineers back into Surflot and find somewhere to put them on the ship.
Moral of the story - do the right thing from the off and you'll pay less. Beggar about optioneering (RVL anyone?) to make a sows ear a silk purse and you'll pay through the nose.
Now we want to fit them, the cost of the equipment itself needs to be added to the budget, plus the detailed design (ie drawings, test forms, tech pubs etc) and changes to the ships system configuration to accommodate them.
The options are pretty much as follows :
1. US "modern" option - the EMALS system (including a new electro-mag arresting system), to be fitted on USS Gerald Ford. Built by General Atomics, with the full-scale EMALS system in test right now at Navy Lakehurst. Should be relatively low-risk, guarantees compatibility with US logs systems over the next 50 yrs, should cover off all EM safety case issues with the US aircraft and doesn't require re-establishing steam training in Surflot. BUT - initial cap cost is high and the power take off from the QEC power control system is going to need some looking at (and that means software - gulp). YOu could possibly get away with just EMALS and conventional Mk7 Mod 4 arrester gear, but that depends whether the US set up their control system to balance loading over cat and trap. If they do, that option probably goes away.
2. UK "Modern" option. Converteam have been paid to look at an "EM Cat" system based on UK IP. Scares the bejeesus out of me frankly, as it took the US 15 years to get where they are now, with proper funding. Doing it the Brit way on a shoestring looks like a nightmare waiting to happen, but that's never stopped us before.........Can't wait for the estimate on testing for the EMI/EMC issues for the aircraft and weapons safety cases either!
3. Steam / Hydraulic option. US C-13-3 cats will still be supported for a few decades yet and it ain't exactly hi-tech, just tricky steam. The arrester gear is slightly more complex. Again the US Mk7 Mod 4 system will be around for a long time yet, with all the spares and tech pubs support that entails. However, McTaggart-Scott could still make an updated version of the DA2 system that all remember as being good. Question is, is it good enough to resurrect the design and support system, when you could buy "off the shelf?" There is then the small matter of finding a suitably-sized steam gen plant and more importantly, squeezing it and the steam supply pipework into the ship, which is really quite advanced in build now. Once they start stitching the units together next year, it really will start costing manhours to put the system in and that's why the cost estimate is so high and the "error band" so large. You'll also have to get properly trained steam engineers back into Surflot and find somewhere to put them on the ship.
Moral of the story - do the right thing from the off and you'll pay less. Beggar about optioneering (RVL anyone?) to make a sows ear a silk purse and you'll pay through the nose.
Thread Starter
Since SDSR my morale has been lowered considerably....
To be honest, I think the risks to worry about relate less to technology and more to people. As has been mentioned here: Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"
To quote a letter I wrote:
If the Royal Navy has no capacity to operate fixed wing aircraft at sea for a decade, then all the skills that are needed will be lost. It is generally reckoned that building these skills up from being non existent to the level we currently have would take approximately ten years – maybe longer. Of course, the pilots can be sent to work with the US Navy or someone else, to build up experience of carrier operations. However, operating fixed wing aircraft (and helicopters to a certain extent) is a whole ship activity. It does not only involve the aircrew and flight deck personnel, but virtually everyone. There is no way we can send hundreds of sailors to work in American carriers, and most of these specialist skills need to be maintained by constant practice. Many are carrier specific.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently that us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS ILLUSTRIOUS in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If I can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
Although I have not yet quoted these praragraphs in full on the thread, I've mentioned all these things. As did others:
Bismark said: As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).
Not_a_boffin said: While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
Recently, more parts have left the local shipyard at Appledore, ready for assembly at Rosyth. More jobs at Appledore in being advertised in the local paper too.
To be honest, I think the risks to worry about relate less to technology and more to people. As has been mentioned here: Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers"
To quote a letter I wrote:
If the Royal Navy has no capacity to operate fixed wing aircraft at sea for a decade, then all the skills that are needed will be lost. It is generally reckoned that building these skills up from being non existent to the level we currently have would take approximately ten years – maybe longer. Of course, the pilots can be sent to work with the US Navy or someone else, to build up experience of carrier operations. However, operating fixed wing aircraft (and helicopters to a certain extent) is a whole ship activity. It does not only involve the aircrew and flight deck personnel, but virtually everyone. There is no way we can send hundreds of sailors to work in American carriers, and most of these specialist skills need to be maintained by constant practice. Many are carrier specific.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently that us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS ILLUSTRIOUS in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If I can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
Although I have not yet quoted these praragraphs in full on the thread, I've mentioned all these things. As did others:
Bismark said: As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).
Not_a_boffin said: While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
Recently, more parts have left the local shipyard at Appledore, ready for assembly at Rosyth. More jobs at Appledore in being advertised in the local paper too.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Apr 2011 at 16:02.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: God's county
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it an unsaid thing that the FAA will not get the F35s (should they ever arrive) and that they'll go to the RAF? Ie RAF led, RAF squadrons etc. Sorry if this has been discussed previously (I'm sure it has to an extent) but I can't be arsed to search through 149 pages.
The fact that the RN has no fixed-wing types (save swapsies) and the propensity for the RAF to covet shiny new pointy things leads me to (deep down) think this to be true.
The RN will possibly get their soon to be sold carrier (singular) and embark a half squadron of F35s every six months or so.
The fact that the RN has no fixed-wing types (save swapsies) and the propensity for the RAF to covet shiny new pointy things leads me to (deep down) think this to be true.
The RN will possibly get their soon to be sold carrier (singular) and embark a half squadron of F35s every six months or so.
rich2010
Nice fishing exped and standby for a world of pain from the dark blue and armchair Admirals!
As one of a lighter shade of blue, and to nibble at the dangling hook, I have seen nothing to suggest that the FAA will not fly the F35 (only dark blue paranoia that they are being "stitched up by the crabs"
). Given the reduced F35 numbers I see there being every chance that they will fly them off the boat and the Air Force will fly them off the land (as a "replacement" for the GR4) with perhaps the odd exchange between the two sides to maintain some sort of jointery.
HOWEVER, if the F35 is delayed too much the FAA may not be able to regenerate the required fixed wing pilots of the right rank and experience. Certainly with little support for FW FAA from their own Lords and Masters (for that is what it seems like to me given the deafening silence from the 1SL on the whole Harrier issue) their very future is in the firing line for future "cuts"....from their own side! Which would be a real shame - my first sqn was a joint RN/RAF outfit and was more the fun for it.
Nice fishing exped and standby for a world of pain from the dark blue and armchair Admirals!
As one of a lighter shade of blue, and to nibble at the dangling hook, I have seen nothing to suggest that the FAA will not fly the F35 (only dark blue paranoia that they are being "stitched up by the crabs"
). Given the reduced F35 numbers I see there being every chance that they will fly them off the boat and the Air Force will fly them off the land (as a "replacement" for the GR4) with perhaps the odd exchange between the two sides to maintain some sort of jointery.HOWEVER, if the F35 is delayed too much the FAA may not be able to regenerate the required fixed wing pilots of the right rank and experience. Certainly with little support for FW FAA from their own Lords and Masters (for that is what it seems like to me given the deafening silence from the 1SL on the whole Harrier issue) their very future is in the firing line for future "cuts"....from their own side! Which would be a real shame - my first sqn was a joint RN/RAF outfit and was more the fun for it.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: God's county
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly am not trying to stir the pot at all. As a mere taxpayer with no particular persuasion either way, I'm just calling it as an outsider. I'm not old enough to remember the old Ark Royal, but from what I've read and biographies, tales and this venerable organ as well, it seems like naval aviation and the people what fly from them (dark or light blue or commando green) are the epitome of military flying.
The above aside, it just makes sense to at the very least start with a bunch of pilots who are already flying fast jets rather than to start from scratch with what will effectively be a new cadre. Perhaps the handful of FAA fellas currently with the USN will be the core that the future bunch starts from.
Will a government type just ask the question as to why do we need a separate bunch when we've already got this many pilots and only got this many planes...
Surely the FAA ethos will be lost now anyway as remaining pilots will be USN or RAF indoctrinated. That will then permuate down and any FAA individuality will be lost (is there any now? JFH etc??).
Back to the original question... Is it an MOD lip service suggestion that the RN will fly fast jets again?
The above aside, it just makes sense to at the very least start with a bunch of pilots who are already flying fast jets rather than to start from scratch with what will effectively be a new cadre. Perhaps the handful of FAA fellas currently with the USN will be the core that the future bunch starts from.
Will a government type just ask the question as to why do we need a separate bunch when we've already got this many pilots and only got this many planes...
Surely the FAA ethos will be lost now anyway as remaining pilots will be USN or RAF indoctrinated. That will then permuate down and any FAA individuality will be lost (is there any now? JFH etc??).
Back to the original question... Is it an MOD lip service suggestion that the RN will fly fast jets again?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R2010...as has been made clear earlier, the loss of the UK's carrier fixed wing capability and associated expertise is a far larger thing than just aircrew....same applies to LRMPA capability lost with Nimrod MRA4.....replacing it and reinventing it is much more than just planning to have the equipment.
That said IT IS clear and stated Government policy that in due course the UK will regain it's Carrier Strike capability albeit in reduced size from pre-SDSR - so no it's not lip service.
That said too,
10 years is a very long time in Defence and political arenas so there is time for any Government to change it's mind...for all manner of reasons. A bird in the Hand is always worth more than any hidden in a bush as the old saying goes ...and it ain't in hand no more.
More pertinent yet, is that the real issue, as with anything in Defence, is the annual spending round process, within which the pressing decisions on expenditure for the forthcoming financial year are reconsidered.......getting large expenditure decisions through these processes can be difficult despite extant policy......so who can guess what will really happen when the decisions about the number of F35s to bought or whether both carriers will be modified to take them go through those processes.
With the difficult world we live in, I think the next HMG would be delinquent not to go for it......and restore some essential RAF capabilities
too...but then who will that government be?
That said IT IS clear and stated Government policy that in due course the UK will regain it's Carrier Strike capability albeit in reduced size from pre-SDSR - so no it's not lip service.
That said too,
10 years is a very long time in Defence and political arenas so there is time for any Government to change it's mind...for all manner of reasons. A bird in the Hand is always worth more than any hidden in a bush as the old saying goes ...and it ain't in hand no more.
More pertinent yet, is that the real issue, as with anything in Defence, is the annual spending round process, within which the pressing decisions on expenditure for the forthcoming financial year are reconsidered.......getting large expenditure decisions through these processes can be difficult despite extant policy......so who can guess what will really happen when the decisions about the number of F35s to bought or whether both carriers will be modified to take them go through those processes.
With the difficult world we live in, I think the next HMG would be delinquent not to go for it......and restore some essential RAF capabilities
too...but then who will that government be?
Thread Starter
Wrathmonk
Certainly with little support for FW FAA from their own Lords and Masters (for that is what it seems like to me given the deafening silence from the 1SL on the whole Harrier issue) their very future is in the firing line for future "cuts"....from their own side! Which would be a real shame - my first sqn was a joint RN/RAF outfit and was more the fun for it.
Does this not count? Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap
In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."
What about giving his backing for a suggestion to use Reservists to operate Harriers? Of course, none of us are privvy to private conversations between Ministers and Senior Officers.
rich2010
I've posted this again so that these comments are at the top of the page. Tallsar understands, the RN gets it, but sadly Mr Cameron does not. Indeed the MOD doesn't know how it will retain skills.
Back to the Harriers axed - bonkers thread......
Certainly with little support for FW FAA from their own Lords and Masters (for that is what it seems like to me given the deafening silence from the 1SL on the whole Harrier issue) their very future is in the firing line for future "cuts"....from their own side! Which would be a real shame - my first sqn was a joint RN/RAF outfit and was more the fun for it.
Does this not count? Head of Navy made last minute plea to save Harriers from scrap-heap
In a tense meeting, Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, told Mr Cameron that he "could not endorse as his military advice" the decision to axe the Harriers and considered it a "political, not military decision."
What about giving his backing for a suggestion to use Reservists to operate Harriers? Of course, none of us are privvy to private conversations between Ministers and Senior Officers.
rich2010
If the Royal Navy has no capacity to operate fixed wing aircraft at sea for a decade, then all the skills that are needed will be lost. It is generally reckoned that building these skills up from being non existent to the level we currently have would take approximately ten years – maybe longer. Of course, the pilots can be sent to work with the US Navy or someone else, to build up experience of carrier operations. However, operating fixed wing aircraft (and helicopters to a certain extent) is a whole ship activity. It does not only involve the aircrew and flight deck personnel, but virtually everyone. There is no way we can send hundreds of sailors to work in American carriers, and most of these specialist skills need to be maintained by constant practice. Many are carrier specific.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently that us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS Illustrious in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If I can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
On the flight deck, aircraft handlers need to be able to speedily and safely move aircraft around the flight deck, both by giving visual cues to pilots and by using vehicles. They also need to be able to deal with any fires or other incidents that might occur. The RN School of Flight Deck Operations at RNAS Culdrose has a dummy deck, dubbed HMS Siskin, where aircraft handlers learn their trade. Real aircraft, including a number of retired Sea Harriers, are used and move under their own power to simulate a carrier deck. However, they cannot simulate the movement of a ship at sea in variable sea conditions, pitching and rolling. Nor can they simulate things such the carrier increasing speed to launch aircraft and the sudden wind over the deck. Getting experience of these things and building experience and confidence requires people to spend time at sea working with aircraft for real. This is a key skill area that will decline very rapidly if we have no flying from carriers.
Other personnel may also need to work on the flight deck, amongst the aircraft. These include the people who maintain the aircraft, and those who fuel and arm them. They too need experience of doing it for real.
Beyond the flight deck, lots of other personnel in different parts of the ship are involved. These include the Navigating Officer and the Officer of the Watch and his/her team on the bridge, who must ensure that the ship is on the right heading for flying operations. The Commander (Air) and his team are responsible for running aviation activities. The marine engineering watchkeepers in the Ship Control Centre are responsible for increasing the speed of the carrier’s engines when needed for launching aircraft, they also carry out adjustments to things such as the ship’s trim, so as to maintain a level deck for flying. There are various sensors, communications systems and landing aids that need to be maintained and operated. All of these are things that demand time spent practising at sea.
Air Traffic Control is of critical importance, as are others who are involved in airspace management. A carrier is unlike any airfield in that she moves. Land based ATC cannot provide the same experience. Her command team must also consider the constraints put on her movements by the maritime environment, by her escorts, and by the need to be aware of the existence of things such as merchant shipping or fishing boats. The aircrew that fly from the deck also need to have an understanding of all these issues. They must also understand how they fit in with the rest of the ship and task group. Finally, no carrier operations mean that in ten years time, there will be no senior naval officers with experience or understanding of these complex issues.
Most of these things cannot be taught on a dummy deck, or in a simulator, but need developing by real flying aboard real decks. The RN has been doing this for many decades, and the experience and expertise, much of it won at great cost, handed down. It seems unlikely that the body of experience would survive a ten year gap of non use. Interestingly, young officers entering the training pipeline to become pilots or observers have been told that to go from scratch to the level of expertise we currently have would take ten years – this is based on the experience of others Navies like those of Spain and Italy who have gained carriers more recently that us.
Some of my comments here are based on what I was fortunate to witness aboard HMS Illustrious in late 2007. Although I had a pretty good idea of what to expect, the number of different parts of ship involved in maintaining safe and effective flying operations took me by surprise. The teamwork was impressive. If I can see this, why does the review turn a blind eye? Whilst in the dinner queue one evening I looked in a magazine I found loafing, there was an article in which a senior aviator (ex Sea Harrier) commented on the danger of future Fleet Air Arm personnel becoming unfamiliar with the shipboard environment and deck operations. My path has crossed with aviation connected personnel at other times, and they have all expressed similar views.
Bismark said: As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).
Not_a_boffin said: While they [personnel on exchange with the US Navy] may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
Not_a_boffin said: While they [personnel on exchange with the US Navy] may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
Back to the Harriers axed - bonkers thread......
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 29th Apr 2011 at 22:26.
That article is 5 months old. Has he spoken out during the Libya crisis? If he has I am concerned you have not linked to it Why is he not putting his weight and influence behind the Phoenix Think Tank? Is it because he can see the bigger picture and knows which battles to fight and which not? Spend money regenerating Harrier onto the current carrier and who knows what the future holds. Just a different view and one I know you would never agree with!
Why is he not putting his weight and influence behind the Phoenix Think Tank? Is it because he can see the bigger picture and knows which battles to fight and which not? Spend money regenerating Harrier onto the current carrier and who knows what the future holds. Just a different view and one I know you would never agree with!
Thread Starter
That article is 5 months old. Has he spoken out during the Libya crisis? If he has I am concerned you have not linked to it Why is he not putting his weight and influence behind the Phoenix Think Tank? Is it because he can see the bigger picture and knows which battles to fight and which not? Spend money regenerating Harrier onto the current carrier and who knows what the future holds. Just a different view and one I know you would never agree with!
Or perhaps he is keeping his powder dry? Regenerating Harrier and or embarking foreign ones wouldn't just be about the current carrier, but also Queen Elizabeth and more importantly keeping the skills mentioned above. There is much talk of personnel being sent on exchange with the US and French Navies - but can more than a handful of individual be trained that way - what about the basics?
Will there be exchanges for lots of chockheads - moving live jets on deck 24 hours a day in all weather in rough sea states, the people who fuel, arm and work on aircraft on deck - amongst jet blast (and FOD issues) the OOW and bridge team - who have to put the ship in the right place, direction and speed for aircraft to take off or land, Ops Room personnel - who have to operate sensors/weapons and talk to aircraft, maintainers of this equipment, landing aids maintainers, the ME watchkeepers keeping a nice level deck and increasing speed when needed, ATC types, Fighter Controllers, senior Officers in the carrier (Cdr(Air), Lt Cdr(Flying), Captain, XO) - they need to know how to run things, senior Officers elsewhere (MOD, Navy Command, task group commanders) who need to know how aircraft are used as task group weapons, etc?
These basics are basics whether the future is V/STOL or CTOL.
PS Is there any way of removing (Including Costs) from the thread title?
Or perhaps he is keeping his powder dry? Regenerating Harrier and or embarking foreign ones wouldn't just be about the current carrier, but also Queen Elizabeth and more importantly keeping the skills mentioned above. There is much talk of personnel being sent on exchange with the US and French Navies - but can more than a handful of individual be trained that way - what about the basics?
Will there be exchanges for lots of chockheads - moving live jets on deck 24 hours a day in all weather in rough sea states, the people who fuel, arm and work on aircraft on deck - amongst jet blast (and FOD issues) the OOW and bridge team - who have to put the ship in the right place, direction and speed for aircraft to take off or land, Ops Room personnel - who have to operate sensors/weapons and talk to aircraft, maintainers of this equipment, landing aids maintainers, the ME watchkeepers keeping a nice level deck and increasing speed when needed, ATC types, Fighter Controllers, senior Officers in the carrier (Cdr(Air), Lt Cdr(Flying), Captain, XO) - they need to know how to run things, senior Officers elsewhere (MOD, Navy Command, task group commanders) who need to know how aircraft are used as task group weapons, etc?
These basics are basics whether the future is V/STOL or CTOL.
PS Is there any way of removing (Including Costs) from the thread title?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 2nd May 2011 at 12:55.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Henry Cooper passed away tonight. His passing has more meaning than the pointless bickering that has plauged this forum for too long. Tourist and Pug, just give it up. Its getting very tired now. Lets move on and just park this one before it becomes self destructive.
Navaleye
Navaleye