Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ORAC,
I was listening to a Parliamentary Select Committee meeting that raised the issue of carrier borne UAV's. A retired Air vice Marshall was advocating these aircrafct as the future but the Navy was saying to launch a UAV with anything like a decent payload will require catapult launch and arrestor wire recovery. Wed have neither.
The Air Marshall was adamant we can use drones for surveillance and i am sure he is correct but can we launch a UAV with enough fuel and the required payload from a ship and also recover it?
I have seen plenty of small UAV's launched from ships but these latest aircraft are huge and getting bigger. I have always maintained that this choice of carrier is and was bonkers, we cannot launch these larger UAV's and even with what we have, we will also not be able to recover them unless we use a crash net.
The RAF are adamant we can, they are adamanat we can cope without MPA, the Navy are saying we are overstretched and are in what appears to be total disagreement, they want MPA, they also wanted the conventional carrier.
My thoughts are that the Navy stars that are in disagreement will be replaced with folks that say the words that want to be heard.
I was listening to a Parliamentary Select Committee meeting that raised the issue of carrier borne UAV's. A retired Air vice Marshall was advocating these aircrafct as the future but the Navy was saying to launch a UAV with anything like a decent payload will require catapult launch and arrestor wire recovery. Wed have neither.
The Air Marshall was adamant we can use drones for surveillance and i am sure he is correct but can we launch a UAV with enough fuel and the required payload from a ship and also recover it?
I have seen plenty of small UAV's launched from ships but these latest aircraft are huge and getting bigger. I have always maintained that this choice of carrier is and was bonkers, we cannot launch these larger UAV's and even with what we have, we will also not be able to recover them unless we use a crash net.
The RAF are adamant we can, they are adamanat we can cope without MPA, the Navy are saying we are overstretched and are in what appears to be total disagreement, they want MPA, they also wanted the conventional carrier.
My thoughts are that the Navy stars that are in disagreement will be replaced with folks that say the words that want to be heard.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the possibility of using on Type 45 and 26 was also mooted, so we are probably talking either small aircraft in the ScanEagle class, or possibly rotary. I very much doubt anything meaty is being contemplated just yet.
However, I think it is right that we should be trialling the concept. Any early capability would likely be limited, but there is a lot of development work going on on UAV's of all sorts, so who knows what capabilities might become available during the service life of the new ships?
LF
However, I think it is right that we should be trialling the concept. Any early capability would likely be limited, but there is a lot of development work going on on UAV's of all sorts, so who knows what capabilities might become available during the service life of the new ships?
LF
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LF,
I totally agree and we are indeed trialling a number of differing types and are also using our RFA's to launch these aircraft.
But if we want to look to the future and maybe consider what will replace manned aircraft or perhaps have an option then is this the way forward and if so did we indeed make the right choices when we opted for the carriers we are now building and should we have resisted this last U turn?
I totally agree and we are indeed trialling a number of differing types and are also using our RFA's to launch these aircraft.
But if we want to look to the future and maybe consider what will replace manned aircraft or perhaps have an option then is this the way forward and if so did we indeed make the right choices when we opted for the carriers we are now building and should we have resisted this last U turn?
Thread Starter
Back to the present: was there really any chance of the RN getting the Hawkeye and Grayhound even if CVF had gone ahead as CTOL?
As for the preference for STOVL supposedly expressed by Their Lordships, I think we ought to remember the problem of the art of the achievable. I still think we need to have embarked fixed wing aircraft before Queen Elizabeth/Prince Of Wales/F35B arrive in service - even if it is only a few borrowed AV8Bs attached to NFSF(FW). If ETPS can safely and economically operate small numbers of foreign jets (such as the Alpha Jet or Grippen) then why cannot NFSF(FW) operate say a couple of borrowed AV8Bs to give us a jet for UK based RN fixed wing jocks to fly, to embark on deck, and to contribute to trials and development of landing aids and other equipment? Would this not be an easier and simpler thing to do that the proposal I made here (over a few posts/pages)?
Or embark foreign ones, talking of which back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Why is this not happening? Would embarking foreign Harriers be too embarrassing for the Government? Yet the need for training future carrier personnel is acknowledged by the commisioning of facilities like this - so why not provide some live training at sea for deck crews at al?
As for the preference for STOVL supposedly expressed by Their Lordships, I think we ought to remember the problem of the art of the achievable. I still think we need to have embarked fixed wing aircraft before Queen Elizabeth/Prince Of Wales/F35B arrive in service - even if it is only a few borrowed AV8Bs attached to NFSF(FW). If ETPS can safely and economically operate small numbers of foreign jets (such as the Alpha Jet or Grippen) then why cannot NFSF(FW) operate say a couple of borrowed AV8Bs to give us a jet for UK based RN fixed wing jocks to fly, to embark on deck, and to contribute to trials and development of landing aids and other equipment? Would this not be an easier and simpler thing to do that the proposal I made here (over a few posts/pages)?
Or embark foreign ones, talking of which back on 17 December 2010, vecvechookattack wrote:
Originally Posted by vvha
We still need FDO's and flight deck crews. HMS Illustrious will still be embarking Fixed wing aircraft upto and until 2014.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to our skintness
I think it is cheaper to embed the pilots and selected deck crew on US and French carriers (given that we already run exchanges and already have a 50 year defence pact with France) then have them flow into instructor spots in those two navies so by the time we get to 2018 we've had several people aboard large carriers and Marine core gators. Rather than doing a work up from scratch.
Given that the F35 is a supersonic combat jet and far bigger than the harrier I suspect that a lot of the handling procedures and other elements are going to have to be cribbed off the US and French who have experience with large carriers whereas ours went in 1976 or so. Surely it's better to get the experience from experienced users who have been continously putting the theory into practice so there's a trained experienced cadre that had direct access to US/French experts while they relearnt all the skills that we used to have.
What's the point in continually refining harrier tactics et all when the replacement jet is a multi-role supersonic strike aircraft with an electronics fit more in keeping with the kit thats on US and French combat jets as opposed to the GR harrier?
We have 36 fixed wing pilots in the FAA from memory and I think we currently have 18 on exhange with more to go out. I also remember reading about a couple of meterlogical officers having been seconded to a CVN also
I think it is cheaper to embed the pilots and selected deck crew on US and French carriers (given that we already run exchanges and already have a 50 year defence pact with France) then have them flow into instructor spots in those two navies so by the time we get to 2018 we've had several people aboard large carriers and Marine core gators. Rather than doing a work up from scratch.
Given that the F35 is a supersonic combat jet and far bigger than the harrier I suspect that a lot of the handling procedures and other elements are going to have to be cribbed off the US and French who have experience with large carriers whereas ours went in 1976 or so. Surely it's better to get the experience from experienced users who have been continously putting the theory into practice so there's a trained experienced cadre that had direct access to US/French experts while they relearnt all the skills that we used to have.
What's the point in continually refining harrier tactics et all when the replacement jet is a multi-role supersonic strike aircraft with an electronics fit more in keeping with the kit thats on US and French combat jets as opposed to the GR harrier?
We have 36 fixed wing pilots in the FAA from memory and I think we currently have 18 on exhange with more to go out. I also remember reading about a couple of meterlogical officers having been seconded to a CVN also
Thread Starter
so by the time we get to 2018 we've had several people aboard
Not quite the same as having a few jets embarked ourselves and everyone in the carrier getting experience.
It will be from scratch for most of the personnel involved. Why do you think so many people have expressed safety concerns (such as those mentioned here)?
The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
and..
With the loss of the aircraft carriers Ark Royal and Illustrious there is little employment for highly specialised deck crew that safely fly and recover aircraft.
The senior officer's concerns that have been passed on to the head of the Navy, are that with the "skills wastage and inability to ramp up level of skills" the new carriers cannot be brought in "in the timescale envisaged".
"I believe it would not be possible given the reduction in the Navy and difficulty of retraining these skills that they can be brought in time scales envisaged.
"The experienced people who we would put on ships are all leaving because they don't have work. This situation is considerably worrying."
Surely basics are basics - Harrier or F35B? Things like handling live aircraft on a moving deck at sea, making sure that the ship is heading in the right direction and speed to launch or recover aircraft, and lots of other whole ship aspects.
To my mind, we also need to think of crises that may occur this decade. The current mantra seems to be cut back, make do, ignore risks, get defeated. Yet despite the cuts, our politicians seemed determined to make noises with respect to possible crises involving Syria or Iran.
Not quite the same as having a few jets embarked ourselves and everyone in the carrier getting experience.
Rather than doing a work up from scratch.
The lack of adequately training personnel could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years, the Navy commander has said.
Another officer has told The Telegraph that the loss of carrier deck handling skills could prove "disastrous" with fatal accidents caused by inexperienced ratings.
and..
With the loss of the aircraft carriers Ark Royal and Illustrious there is little employment for highly specialised deck crew that safely fly and recover aircraft.
The senior officer's concerns that have been passed on to the head of the Navy, are that with the "skills wastage and inability to ramp up level of skills" the new carriers cannot be brought in "in the timescale envisaged".
"I believe it would not be possible given the reduction in the Navy and difficulty of retraining these skills that they can be brought in time scales envisaged.
"The experienced people who we would put on ships are all leaving because they don't have work. This situation is considerably worrying."
Surely basics are basics - Harrier or F35B? Things like handling live aircraft on a moving deck at sea, making sure that the ship is heading in the right direction and speed to launch or recover aircraft, and lots of other whole ship aspects.
To my mind, we also need to think of crises that may occur this decade. The current mantra seems to be cut back, make do, ignore risks, get defeated. Yet despite the cuts, our politicians seemed determined to make noises with respect to possible crises involving Syria or Iran.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hulahoop7
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
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: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(In response to WE Branch Fanatic) ...because while they make those noises, they continue to give the great unwashed/uncaring the impression that we still 'can' rather than letting them know the true state we're in.
Last edited by ColdCollation; 19th Dec 2012 at 14:39.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't worry about skill fade on the bridge. We had the Invincible class for 30 years, and they never managed to get the wind right once.
Also - so long as these ratings that are hell bent on creating fatalities on deck only kill themselves then we should be good.
Also - so long as these ratings that are hell bent on creating fatalities on deck only kill themselves then we should be good.
was there really any chance of the RN getting the Hawkeye and Grayhound even if CVF had gone ahead as CTOL?
Personally I think developing something like the a-160 hummingbird is a better long term strategy. I hope Boeing persist with it. 20 hours at 250FL and $20million each, impressive if they can get it reliable.
Last edited by peter we; 19th Dec 2012 at 22:27.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Home for Christmas: 9 Flattops at Norfolk
With the returns from deployment of the carrier DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and her escorting cruiser HUE CITY on Dec. 19, and the amphibious ships IWO JIMA and NEW YORK on Dec. 20, the piers at Norfolk’s naval base are about as full up as they’ll ever be.
Five aircraft carriers, four big-deck amphibious assault ships, a full cast of “small boy” surface warships, along with nuclear submarines and support ships, are crowding the base, giving a comfortably snug feeling to the waterfront. Similar scenes — although not with the gathering of flattops seen here — are taking place at other fleet concentration areas like San Diego and Pearl Harbor.......
From bottom to top, front to back:
Aircraft carrier DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69)
Aircraft carrier GEORGE H. W. BUSH (CVN 77)
Aircraft carrier ENTERPRISE (CVN 65)
Amphibious assault ship BATAAN (LHD 5)
Aircraft carrier ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72)
Aircraft carrier HARRY S TRUMAN (CVN 75)
Amphibious assault ship WASP (LHD 1)
Amphibious assault ship KEARSARGE (LHD 3)
Amphibious landing platform dock NEW YORK (LPD 21)
A T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ship
Amphibious assault ship IWO JIMA (LHD 7)
and various cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Also across Hampton Roads but not in these photos are two other carriers at Newport News Shipbuilding: THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71), now finishing up a three-and-a-half-year refueling overhaul, and the new GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78), first ship of a new class of carriers, that will launch in mid-2013.....
With the returns from deployment of the carrier DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and her escorting cruiser HUE CITY on Dec. 19, and the amphibious ships IWO JIMA and NEW YORK on Dec. 20, the piers at Norfolk’s naval base are about as full up as they’ll ever be.
Five aircraft carriers, four big-deck amphibious assault ships, a full cast of “small boy” surface warships, along with nuclear submarines and support ships, are crowding the base, giving a comfortably snug feeling to the waterfront. Similar scenes — although not with the gathering of flattops seen here — are taking place at other fleet concentration areas like San Diego and Pearl Harbor.......
From bottom to top, front to back:
Aircraft carrier DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER (CVN 69)
Aircraft carrier GEORGE H. W. BUSH (CVN 77)
Aircraft carrier ENTERPRISE (CVN 65)
Amphibious assault ship BATAAN (LHD 5)
Aircraft carrier ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72)
Aircraft carrier HARRY S TRUMAN (CVN 75)
Amphibious assault ship WASP (LHD 1)
Amphibious assault ship KEARSARGE (LHD 3)
Amphibious landing platform dock NEW YORK (LPD 21)
A T-AKE dry cargo ammunition ship
Amphibious assault ship IWO JIMA (LHD 7)
and various cruisers, destroyers, frigates and submarines of the U.S. Atlantic Fleet.
Also across Hampton Roads but not in these photos are two other carriers at Newport News Shipbuilding: THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71), now finishing up a three-and-a-half-year refueling overhaul, and the new GERALD R. FORD (CVN 78), first ship of a new class of carriers, that will launch in mid-2013.....
Originally Posted by webf
could delay the carrier coming into service by another three or four years
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture of those US warships made me smile as we have a number of very large Naval Dockyards that always look relatively unoccupied. That certainly is not the case with that image.
I guess we could pretend that quality beats quantity
I guess we could pretend that quality beats quantity
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by orca
Also - so long as these ratings that are hell bent on creating fatalities on deck only kill themselves then we should be good.
Originally Posted by Courtney Mil
It seems to me that if the Navy lacks the skill sets to utilize the new carrier operationally, we may as well save the country a fortune and cancel it now.
Pre SDSR regeneration of carriers skills was seen as a priority. SDSR axed Harrier. Therefore if we are losing these skills it is down to SDSR. However, SDSR said that in the longer term we need carriers. The decision to go back to a STOVL future means that the claims that skill involved were of no use is not just an excuse (based on assuming that nobody would think about it too deeply - as they might start wondering if basics would still be basics) to help justify a hasty decision, but is completely inapplicable. Yet the problem is solvable - see points 9 to 12 here.
If we permitted ourselves to think outside of the SDSR box, we could probably devise a solution that gives UK based RN fixed wing pilots something to fly, AND provide an aircraft (even if it only a couple) to embark - in terms of preparing future carrier personnel is there any substitute for jets on deck?
The history of naval aviation is a history of courage and innovation. Yet none of out current political leaders (is this a clue where the problem is?) has the courage to admit a mistake, or to allow innovation. How many more wars do we want to lose, or needless losses to happen?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Mar 2017 at 17:43.