Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Hammond: Keep Both Carriers in Royal Navy Service | Defense News | defensenews.com
Nov. 1, 2012 By ANDREW CHUTER
"...
The British F-35 fleet will be operated by a joint RAF/RN force. The exact number of aircraft to be purchased initially remains unclear, but media reports have put the figure at between 40 and 48.
The RAF has been arguing for a small number of aircraft to be routinely deployed on the carrier in the early years as the overall fleet of aircraft is built up. The number is unknown, but one RN source said it was in single figures.
Hammond appeared to end the debate, saying the RN would “routinely embark 12 jets when deployed outside home waters with an ability to surge that number higher in periods of tension.”
Land-based initial operating capability for the F-35 is scheduled for 2018, with initial flights off HMS Queen Elizabeth set for 2018, said Hammond...."
Nov. 1, 2012 By ANDREW CHUTER
"...
The British F-35 fleet will be operated by a joint RAF/RN force. The exact number of aircraft to be purchased initially remains unclear, but media reports have put the figure at between 40 and 48.
The RAF has been arguing for a small number of aircraft to be routinely deployed on the carrier in the early years as the overall fleet of aircraft is built up. The number is unknown, but one RN source said it was in single figures.
Hammond appeared to end the debate, saying the RN would “routinely embark 12 jets when deployed outside home waters with an ability to surge that number higher in periods of tension.”
Land-based initial operating capability for the F-35 is scheduled for 2018, with initial flights off HMS Queen Elizabeth set for 2018, said Hammond...."
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hammond appeared to end the debate, saying the RN would “routinely embark 12 jets when deployed outside home waters with an ability to surge that number higher in periods of tension.”
If they only deploy with the required numbers to both operate and service the twelve fixed wing aircraft then would the ship have to at the very least get within helicopter range of a friendly country to fly out the necessary support staff?
Surely no-one's surprised! The whole carrier/F35 programme is far more about politics (and I'm talking big boys' politics, not the inter-service sort) than it is about capability or sustainability or any kind of military consideration.
Politicians: Since we have a carrier, we have to put aircraft on it at every opportunity. What you do with them, frankly, couldn't care less, couldn't give a sht*t.
FAA:
RAF:
Politicians: Since we have a carrier, we have to put aircraft on it at every opportunity. What you do with them, frankly, couldn't care less, couldn't give a sht*t.
FAA:
RAF:
Last edited by Easy Street; 1st Nov 2012 at 22:42.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glojo,
Simple stuff for me.
12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.
That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.
That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.
Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses.
Simple stuff for me.
12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.
That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.
That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.
Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca,
Would that be 2 squadrons of FJ embarked? Sounds almost like the old Ark with Tooms and Buccs.
Add in some a couple of junglies, grey merlins, baggers // son of bagger and a Lynx Wildcat (of whichever colour) or two (and a WAH-64 now and again) - that would be an interesting range of capabilities.
Still a shame that we couldn't afford the "Cats & Flaps" and all that that would have added - but John Farley's comments of 'stopping and then landing' do make sense.
Would that be 2 squadrons of FJ embarked? Sounds almost like the old Ark with Tooms and Buccs.
Add in some a couple of junglies, grey merlins, baggers // son of bagger and a Lynx Wildcat (of whichever colour) or two (and a WAH-64 now and again) - that would be an interesting range of capabilities.
Still a shame that we couldn't afford the "Cats & Flaps" and all that that would have added - but John Farley's comments of 'stopping and then landing' do make sense.
Last edited by Finnpog; 2nd Nov 2012 at 07:21.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning Orca,
You are not thick. I suspect you might know what I am going to write. My comment was slightly tongue in cheek and was looking at things from a cost point of view. There are political reasons and strategic/ tactical reasons why a carrier might be used irrespective of cost. Here are a few indicators of cost items, irrespective of the number of aircraft on board the carrier.
What have I missed? Oh yes, parking fees and a myriad other costs.
You are not thick. I suspect you might know what I am going to write. My comment was slightly tongue in cheek and was looking at things from a cost point of view. There are political reasons and strategic/ tactical reasons why a carrier might be used irrespective of cost. Here are a few indicators of cost items, irrespective of the number of aircraft on board the carrier.
- A Crew compliment of 679 ships crew and an air element of up to 1,600 (when fully manned)
- Designed to take 40 + aircraft (maximum of thirty-six F-35s and four helicopters)
- Requirement to provide aerial refuelling, AEW, MPA. SAR aircraft guard and COD. Do these aircraft make up part of the twelve aircraft to be deployed, or are they in addition to twelve F35s?
- Other vessels required to protect carrier. Let’s assume one Type 45 (crews compliment of 190) and one Astute class submarine (crews compliment of 98)
- Also a requirement for RFA replenishment vessel/s. The MARS tankers have a crew of 63
- Training costs for aircraft carrier usage are higher than for land based training
- The life of the three vessels will be shortened by deployment
- Increased crew costs for deployment. Don't need so many personnel if deploying on land
What have I missed? Oh yes, parking fees and a myriad other costs.
Last edited by hval; 2nd Nov 2012 at 08:46. Reason: Poor typing. Tut tut
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What have I missed
It's far easier to get non strike aircraft permission to operate from foreign land. Afghanistan 2001, some ME countries allowed the tanker assets/nimrod to operate from their soil but the only FJ's we refuelled were off the carriers.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the main use of the carriers will be to provide stand off bases here and there in low (marine) threat environments using whatever helicopters we have at the time - think Ocean or Argos but bigger
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lj101,
You are correct in what you write. This is where having an aircraft carrier is an advantage. There are many other situations where having an aircraft carrier would also be advantadgeous.
The High Heed Yuns may not wish to deploy the aircraft carrier as often as they should due to the additional operating costs. Availability of carrier protection vessels may also be an issue due to the lack of ships and boats. If the carrier is not deployed for sufficient training, due to a lack of funds, vessels or what eve,r then there may be increased risks.
You are correct in what you write. This is where having an aircraft carrier is an advantage. There are many other situations where having an aircraft carrier would also be advantadgeous.
The High Heed Yuns may not wish to deploy the aircraft carrier as often as they should due to the additional operating costs. Availability of carrier protection vessels may also be an issue due to the lack of ships and boats. If the carrier is not deployed for sufficient training, due to a lack of funds, vessels or what eve,r then there may be increased risks.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hval, the point is it isn't going to just be the F35s. Lusty and Ocean are on their last legs (old age and cheap build). The QE class will be the home for the Commando helicopter force too. 90% of the time QE will be part of the Response Force Task Group essentially acting like a USS America. 90% of the time, that is all the UK needs. But it is also big enough to accommodate more F35 in an emergency, or become a strike carrier if the mission requires. Despite best efforts, the UK will end up with a flexible and well proportioned tool.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hulahoop,
Good, valid, sensible points. Unfortunately our politicians would appear to be on a cost saving drive that takes absolutely no notice of defence requirements. Cost is all. It would make more sense, to me, to actually operate the carriers to their optimum. What a waste to deploy with only twelve aircraft, whether it be for training or actual deployment for security reasons. You have all these personnel, support vessels, POL, food stuff etc being used, just for twelve aircraft. What is the up time going to be on the F-35? Certainly there will be some training and experience obtained from training with twelve aircraft, but not as much as with fourty aircraft.
Good, valid, sensible points. Unfortunately our politicians would appear to be on a cost saving drive that takes absolutely no notice of defence requirements. Cost is all. It would make more sense, to me, to actually operate the carriers to their optimum. What a waste to deploy with only twelve aircraft, whether it be for training or actual deployment for security reasons. You have all these personnel, support vessels, POL, food stuff etc being used, just for twelve aircraft. What is the up time going to be on the F-35? Certainly there will be some training and experience obtained from training with twelve aircraft, but not as much as with fourty aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by orca
Glojo,
Simple stuff for me.
12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.
That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.
That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.
Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses.
Simple stuff for me.
12 jets would probably give you a 26 sortie day in peacetime. They would come crewed about 2:1 with a small overhead of scamps that were good for not much - so let's say 27 FW aircrew flying a 8/6/6/6 cycle which would take about 14 hours from first engine lit to last one stop cocked.
That's pretty much all your supervisory chain could cope with in peacetime so no real need to uplift anyone other than for hostilities at which point, yes, you might have to drag some extra bodies on from somewhere.
That is, of course, assuming that there were some more jets to uplift or 24 hour ops were called for.
Probably grossly out with my asumptions - which are actually slightly informed wild a##e guesses.
My memory is not what it was but I am fairly sure that the 22000 ton Centaur had just 12 fast jets (was it 892 Squadron Sea Vixens) and we coped with whatever was thrown at us be it Borneo or Aden.
22000 tons, 12 fast jets PLUS AEW along with COD and of course the numerous helicopter types. compared to the more modern Queen Elizabeth which will be 60k plus which we hear might now be deploying with the same 12 fast jets along with a few helicopters. The 12 F-35 will be a formidable force as long as the servicing does not keep them tucked up in bed for the great majority of their time.
We might scoff at 'just' embarking 12 F-35 but how many Tornado were operating out of the Italian base during this latest conflict with Libya and at what cost?
If we have the aircraft then let us get them as close to the target as safely as possible.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hval,
You seem to imply that it costs nothing to deploy an air capability to a foreign airfield. It costs millions! Also this deployed unit will require constant re-supply of everything from food to weapons - at great cost. And such land based deployments are not easily set up or dismantled. Once the political and military decision to deploy is made the impact is huge, a Cv deployment can be turned around in minutes - "hard to port coxswain!"
You seem to imply that it costs nothing to deploy an air capability to a foreign airfield. It costs millions! Also this deployed unit will require constant re-supply of everything from food to weapons - at great cost. And such land based deployments are not easily set up or dismantled. Once the political and military decision to deploy is made the impact is huge, a Cv deployment can be turned around in minutes - "hard to port coxswain!"
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark,
If you get the impression that I imply that the deployment of aircraft costs nothing I do apologise. That is not what I meant for people to pick up on. The cost of deployment is significantly reduced compared to deploying a carrier fleet, even a carrier fleet as small as ours shall be.
I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't.
The point I am trying to make is that it would make more sense to deploy a carrier fleet with more than twelve airframes aboard. The ships and boats have a limited number of hours usage. Going to sea places stress and strain on all the bits and pieces that make up a fleet. The same amount of stress and strain is going to be involved whether there are twelve airframes or fourty airframes aboard (simplistic, not taking in to account increased weight, increased crew, increased use of lifts etc).
I therefore believe that we should be maximising the use of everything by deploying more than twelve airframes.
Our political masters might well decide that it is significantly cheaper to deploy aircraft to airfields than to send a carrier fleet on deployment. then there is also the need to take in to account that the carrier defensive vessels might be required elsewhere. We are short of ships and boats, with possibly/ probably insufficient to carry out the necessary tasks.
Then we have the reduced training. This impacts massively on safety. Carriers are very complex floaty things with a lot more risks than on a non floaty airfield.If there is a lack of training risks go up.
Hopefully I have clarified what I have been attempting to get across, obviously unsuccessfully.
EDITED TO ADD
Our Political Leaders are more than likely going to look at costs rather than what is sensible.
If you get the impression that I imply that the deployment of aircraft costs nothing I do apologise. That is not what I meant for people to pick up on. The cost of deployment is significantly reduced compared to deploying a carrier fleet, even a carrier fleet as small as ours shall be.
I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't.
The point I am trying to make is that it would make more sense to deploy a carrier fleet with more than twelve airframes aboard. The ships and boats have a limited number of hours usage. Going to sea places stress and strain on all the bits and pieces that make up a fleet. The same amount of stress and strain is going to be involved whether there are twelve airframes or fourty airframes aboard (simplistic, not taking in to account increased weight, increased crew, increased use of lifts etc).
I therefore believe that we should be maximising the use of everything by deploying more than twelve airframes.
Our political masters might well decide that it is significantly cheaper to deploy aircraft to airfields than to send a carrier fleet on deployment. then there is also the need to take in to account that the carrier defensive vessels might be required elsewhere. We are short of ships and boats, with possibly/ probably insufficient to carry out the necessary tasks.
Then we have the reduced training. This impacts massively on safety. Carriers are very complex floaty things with a lot more risks than on a non floaty airfield.If there is a lack of training risks go up.
Hopefully I have clarified what I have been attempting to get across, obviously unsuccessfully.
EDITED TO ADD
Our Political Leaders are more than likely going to look at costs rather than what is sensible.
Last edited by hval; 2nd Nov 2012 at 12:16.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see a situation where the F35 number would get past 24. That's probably the maximum capacity where the junglies can remain on board. In most scenarios you are likely to want that RM capacity too.
And let's put this in context. The UK hasn't been able to put much more than 16 fixed wing aircraft to sea for over 30 years. I don't think CdG will carry much more than 24 - particularly rifrafs.
A task group built on those numbers, and with an LPD and 2 LSDs in company, will not lack capacity to deliver death and destruction for UK plc.
And let's put this in context. The UK hasn't been able to put much more than 16 fixed wing aircraft to sea for over 30 years. I don't think CdG will carry much more than 24 - particularly rifrafs.
A task group built on those numbers, and with an LPD and 2 LSDs in company, will not lack capacity to deliver death and destruction for UK plc.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hulahoop,
Twenty four aircraft are better than twelve aircraft. Sixteen is better than twelve.
I can see where the QE II carriers may be used with LPD & LSD. I can also see situations where an aircraft carrier will be required as an aircraft carrier, without either of these assets types.
Twenty four aircraft are better than twelve aircraft. Sixteen is better than twelve.
I can see where the QE II carriers may be used with LPD & LSD. I can also see situations where an aircraft carrier will be required as an aircraft carrier, without either of these assets types.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hval wrote:-
"I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't."
I suspect our political masters can't see how the hell they are going to afford all this hardware and get re-elected. In every opinion poll, when asked to rate the importance of expenditure Defence gets about 5% of the vote behind schools, education, NHS, pensions, roads etc
"I am actually pro carrier. I want one; no, in fact I want three carriers, plus all the necessary assets to protect them. That does not mean one Type 45 and one submarine per carrier. I want a real navy, with lots of ships, boats, aircraft and all the necessary funding that goes with it. I really do. Our political masters don't."
I suspect our political masters can't see how the hell they are going to afford all this hardware and get re-elected. In every opinion poll, when asked to rate the importance of expenditure Defence gets about 5% of the vote behind schools, education, NHS, pensions, roads etc
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry,
This is the problem, politicians don't care about the UK and the people of the UK, they only care about themselves and keeping their greedy snouts in the rich trough that feeds them.
This is the problem, politicians don't care about the UK and the people of the UK, they only care about themselves and keeping their greedy snouts in the rich trough that feeds them.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that politicians respond to the messages they get from the electorate - there is no popular support for spending on defence in the UK right now
If any party was to stand on the basis that
" we're going to increase the military budget and increase taxes"or
"we're going to increase the military budget and cut the NHS/pensions/Education"
they'd be reduced to a couple of dozen seats
Sad but in general the good people of the UK don't feel threatened right now - certainly not by nuclear or conventional foreign forces - maybe by Al Qaeda
TBH this is how Churchill spent years in the wilderness - no-one wanted to listen to his warnings
If any party was to stand on the basis that
" we're going to increase the military budget and increase taxes"or
"we're going to increase the military budget and cut the NHS/pensions/Education"
they'd be reduced to a couple of dozen seats
Sad but in general the good people of the UK don't feel threatened right now - certainly not by nuclear or conventional foreign forces - maybe by Al Qaeda
TBH this is how Churchill spent years in the wilderness - no-one wanted to listen to his warnings