Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just picking up on that, can someone please explain how going with the carrier version supposedly DECREASES interoperability with allies?
Not with the French and the US Navy, it doesn't... which I'd suggest are the people we're most likely to be working with.
Sorry, an addition to clarify. I'm talking about this from the report cited in The Independent's article:
"Perhaps the primary example of how little the MoD understood about this decision is the fact that it was supposed to improve interoperability. This turned out to be incorrect."
Not with the French and the US Navy, it doesn't... which I'd suggest are the people we're most likely to be working with.
Sorry, an addition to clarify. I'm talking about this from the report cited in The Independent's article:
"Perhaps the primary example of how little the MoD understood about this decision is the fact that it was supposed to improve interoperability. This turned out to be incorrect."
Last edited by ColdCollation; 5th Feb 2013 at 14:26.
Because the Minister quoted in the report chooses to (quite correctly) use a fuller definition of interoperability, as opposed to merely cross-decking. It doesn't say it decreases, it merely says the idea that interoperability would be increased was incorrect.
The definition they have chosen to use means being able to refuel, service and re-arm aircraft from other nations in a combined force. Something that we have not done for fixed-wing since the USMC Harriers embarked on a CVS some years ago. That worked because their squadron embarked with them. I suspect the definition of interoperability that "was incorrect" used here refers to being able to seamlessly swap decks, which is of course highly unlikely. The HH60s on Ocean during Ellamy were again embarked with a det of support.
Other than that, when you see (for example) shots of US F4 and A7 on Ark, or F4K on US carriers, they're not doing much more than gas n'go.
There will be specific to type ASE, IT, munitions and all sorts of other paraphernalia that would be required for true interoperability. It can be done, but only as a planned serial with a lot of preparation and training - assuming classification issues can also be overcome. Whether the tales that Dave C can't recover on CDG are true or not, I don't know, but I suspect what they mean (if true) is that it can't recover at high weights, which is different to not be able to operate.
The primary rationale behind the switch to Dave C and CTOL was to reduce the risk that Dave B would get canned - that model specifically had been put on probation at the time. It would have allowed fall-back options if Dave as a whole got binned and would have allowed embarkation of US or FR squadrons as a pre-planned serial only. But I don't think we're allowed to say that now........
It is interesting that the evidence session in the Appendices sheds no more real light on how the costs escalated - nor how looking at conversion managed to cost £100M for that matter! If you ignore Docherty grandstanding, it's clear no-one really wants to get into much detail or specifics. "Additional equipment for cat n trap" can only mean Fresnel lenses, JBDs and potentially JPAR. Can't really see that lot going above 2 digit £M either.
But, it's done. It's not changing unless B is binned. Move on.
The definition they have chosen to use means being able to refuel, service and re-arm aircraft from other nations in a combined force. Something that we have not done for fixed-wing since the USMC Harriers embarked on a CVS some years ago. That worked because their squadron embarked with them. I suspect the definition of interoperability that "was incorrect" used here refers to being able to seamlessly swap decks, which is of course highly unlikely. The HH60s on Ocean during Ellamy were again embarked with a det of support.
Other than that, when you see (for example) shots of US F4 and A7 on Ark, or F4K on US carriers, they're not doing much more than gas n'go.
There will be specific to type ASE, IT, munitions and all sorts of other paraphernalia that would be required for true interoperability. It can be done, but only as a planned serial with a lot of preparation and training - assuming classification issues can also be overcome. Whether the tales that Dave C can't recover on CDG are true or not, I don't know, but I suspect what they mean (if true) is that it can't recover at high weights, which is different to not be able to operate.
The primary rationale behind the switch to Dave C and CTOL was to reduce the risk that Dave B would get canned - that model specifically had been put on probation at the time. It would have allowed fall-back options if Dave as a whole got binned and would have allowed embarkation of US or FR squadrons as a pre-planned serial only. But I don't think we're allowed to say that now........
It is interesting that the evidence session in the Appendices sheds no more real light on how the costs escalated - nor how looking at conversion managed to cost £100M for that matter! If you ignore Docherty grandstanding, it's clear no-one really wants to get into much detail or specifics. "Additional equipment for cat n trap" can only mean Fresnel lenses, JBDs and potentially JPAR. Can't really see that lot going above 2 digit £M either.
But, it's done. It's not changing unless B is binned. Move on.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 5th Feb 2013 at 14:52.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The recent posts make me so angry at my previous employer. Brings back memories of Dame Ursula discussing cats and traps with such authority before the PAC last April. Joined up MoD thinking at its best and we all pay the price.
I wish I had a more positive contribution to make on this thread other than concur with CM.
Do you think the grown ups in Whitehall gauge opinion by doing a search on here? May be an aid to better decision making. we should perhaps have our own SSDR!
Bring back Invisible and Harrier. I am sure JF would agree.
I wish I had a more positive contribution to make on this thread other than concur with CM.
Do you think the grown ups in Whitehall gauge opinion by doing a search on here? May be an aid to better decision making. we should perhaps have our own SSDR!
Bring back Invisible and Harrier. I am sure JF would agree.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just when you think it's safe to get back in the water...
Report: Costly USN Aircraft Carriers May Be Too Vulnerable To Keep | Defense News | defensenews.com
The linked item is a piece from Defense News summarising a report which undermines the whole big carrier rationale, and F35 into the bargain. The report comes from the Center for a New American Security. Just what you want to read when the UK is about to get back into fixed-wing carriers in a big way - well, big for us - and buying F35 to fly off it.
Now, I don't know anything about CNAS, or its agenda, so it may not be the most impartial of commentators. It does seem to be deliberately provocative and so I'm sure the knowledgeable can provide objective criticism. While it is thought provoking, I cannot see even the remotest possibility of the US (or UK) defence policy changing tack on carrier power - well not for the reasons in the report anyway.
LF
The linked item is a piece from Defense News summarising a report which undermines the whole big carrier rationale, and F35 into the bargain. The report comes from the Center for a New American Security. Just what you want to read when the UK is about to get back into fixed-wing carriers in a big way - well, big for us - and buying F35 to fly off it.
Now, I don't know anything about CNAS, or its agenda, so it may not be the most impartial of commentators. It does seem to be deliberately provocative and so I'm sure the knowledgeable can provide objective criticism. While it is thought provoking, I cannot see even the remotest possibility of the US (or UK) defence policy changing tack on carrier power - well not for the reasons in the report anyway.
LF
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr, yeah, but at the same time resoundingly - no.
Article fails to mention that submarines can be killed - which would also be costly. As I understand it 'a few' countries can kill a submarine - the whole article is based on a possible kill chain that 'a single' country might possibly develop in one of the potential futures to the actual present. A plan that revolves around one Tomahawk per DPI is costly...and the one target, one missile plan is fanciful. A submarine converted to perform disaster relief would be funny and costly - as would a submarine converted to do anything other than being quiet. A submarine trying to do some form of presence, poise or escalatory ops would be funny - or costly.
UCAVs. Brilliant idea. By the time the Ford is ready to pay off we should have loads. We should find something of adequate size and shape to carry loads of them and that way unlock their full potential. To be as flexible as possible this thing should move - preferably on the ocean. Let's call it an aircraft carrier shall we?
Article fails to mention that submarines can be killed - which would also be costly. As I understand it 'a few' countries can kill a submarine - the whole article is based on a possible kill chain that 'a single' country might possibly develop in one of the potential futures to the actual present. A plan that revolves around one Tomahawk per DPI is costly...and the one target, one missile plan is fanciful. A submarine converted to perform disaster relief would be funny and costly - as would a submarine converted to do anything other than being quiet. A submarine trying to do some form of presence, poise or escalatory ops would be funny - or costly.
UCAVs. Brilliant idea. By the time the Ford is ready to pay off we should have loads. We should find something of adequate size and shape to carry loads of them and that way unlock their full potential. To be as flexible as possible this thing should move - preferably on the ocean. Let's call it an aircraft carrier shall we?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked a question a while back that never got answered.
If the F-35B gets binned for whatever reason then will that be the end of fast jet flying for the Fleet Air Arm?
What plans are there to allow for this and still have fast jet flying from our carriers?
We talk about the future being with UCAV's but would any decent sized version need a catapult launch system and...... Arrester wires to recover it?
Carrying out exercises to sink a carrier might see some success but what is the reality? How many carriers have been successfully attacked in the last fifty years? By success I mean actually hit with anything other than a laser beam during an exercise?
We talk of submarine attacks on these capital ships but surely this would mean we would be fighting a first world foe and just maybe we would have bigger worries than loosing a carrier?
How many times have air bases been attacked in Afghanistan compared to attacks on carriers? I accept that Afghanistan is not the best of examples so lets include both the Iraqi conflict and Libya.
To under estimate the Chinese would be folly, to give them to much credit would possibly be the greater sin? (question)
If the F-35B gets binned for whatever reason then will that be the end of fast jet flying for the Fleet Air Arm?
What plans are there to allow for this and still have fast jet flying from our carriers?
We talk about the future being with UCAV's but would any decent sized version need a catapult launch system and...... Arrester wires to recover it?
Carrying out exercises to sink a carrier might see some success but what is the reality? How many carriers have been successfully attacked in the last fifty years? By success I mean actually hit with anything other than a laser beam during an exercise?
We talk of submarine attacks on these capital ships but surely this would mean we would be fighting a first world foe and just maybe we would have bigger worries than loosing a carrier?
How many times have air bases been attacked in Afghanistan compared to attacks on carriers? I accept that Afghanistan is not the best of examples so lets include both the Iraqi conflict and Libya.
To under estimate the Chinese would be folly, to give them to much credit would possibly be the greater sin? (question)
In the event F35B is binned, there is a binary choice. There are no more STOVL options, so the choice is between converting QEC and PoW to CTOL ops, or getting out of carrier (and probably power projection) ops for good.
If the choice is the latter, sell or scrap, endex.
If the choice is the former, then the ships are convertible, as planned, which is something you wouldn't have with a smaller ship. It just costs money - whether that money is actually as much as presented when the back to STOVL deision was made, is likely to come into sharp focus. Whether the aircraft option is F18E, Rafale or F35C is somewhat irrelevant.
As for carrier vulnerability, isn't it strange that no-one mentions what a DF21 - allegedly capable of being guided to a 300m x 70m moving target - might do to a fixed installation where runway intersections, fuel farms, bomb dumps etc would be far easier to target and when hit be just as easily damaged? One suspects a ballistic HE warhead travelling at several hundred metres per second is likely to cause damage far in excess of Durandal-type cratering munitions and way beyond your normal runway repair capabilities.
If the choice is the latter, sell or scrap, endex.
If the choice is the former, then the ships are convertible, as planned, which is something you wouldn't have with a smaller ship. It just costs money - whether that money is actually as much as presented when the back to STOVL deision was made, is likely to come into sharp focus. Whether the aircraft option is F18E, Rafale or F35C is somewhat irrelevant.
As for carrier vulnerability, isn't it strange that no-one mentions what a DF21 - allegedly capable of being guided to a 300m x 70m moving target - might do to a fixed installation where runway intersections, fuel farms, bomb dumps etc would be far easier to target and when hit be just as easily damaged? One suspects a ballistic HE warhead travelling at several hundred metres per second is likely to cause damage far in excess of Durandal-type cratering munitions and way beyond your normal runway repair capabilities.
Well, there's nothing new about accurate, HE ballistic weapons - the DF21C has been around for a long time. It may be fast, but it's only a little over 1,000 lbs of warhead. However, there is still the same old problem of launching ballistic missiles, the danger that such a launch is mistaken for a nuclear strike.
What is new is the fact that the DF21D is supposed to be able to take out a moving carrier with a single hit. Suddenly the big carriers become (potentially) very vulnerable.
Glojo, long time no see, my friend. And a good question. I think Not_a_Boffin makes the point well. My preference would be to see the cats and traps back anyway, I would certainly hate to see the end of naval fast air, but who knows what the economic climate, next government, cost of the launch system, etc will be in the future.
My guess would be, provided the government of the day has the balls, they would go for CTOL with all the goodies that requires, probably only one carrier and a much less expensive airframe. At least that would mean we could have a decent AEW platform too.
What is new is the fact that the DF21D is supposed to be able to take out a moving carrier with a single hit. Suddenly the big carriers become (potentially) very vulnerable.
Glojo, long time no see, my friend. And a good question. I think Not_a_Boffin makes the point well. My preference would be to see the cats and traps back anyway, I would certainly hate to see the end of naval fast air, but who knows what the economic climate, next government, cost of the launch system, etc will be in the future.
My guess would be, provided the government of the day has the balls, they would go for CTOL with all the goodies that requires, probably only one carrier and a much less expensive airframe. At least that would mean we could have a decent AEW platform too.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 13th Mar 2013 at 10:52.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Courtney 
I still enjoy reading these threads but have indeed not posted for a while. I always have my fingers crossed that Mr Boffin will answer my questions as I hold his opinions in the highest of regard.
I fear that if the F35B is binned then sadly the future will not be bright for fast jet operations. From a military point or should that be Naval point of view there should have really only ever been the one option. To build a ship that can only operate one type of aircraft that would be the last in its line and not ever going to be replaced was not the wisest of decisions.
Will ANY government be able to do a U turn on a U turn on I believe another U turn? There might be one U too many but hopefully folks will get my point. Are politicians more interested in their own political career as opposed to what is best for a nation?
As I said in my previous post the arguement for converting to UCAV operations is flawed simply because of the lack of launch, recovery equipment on these STOVL ships.
Not sure about keeping just the one?? (question)
I still enjoy reading these threads but have indeed not posted for a while. I always have my fingers crossed that Mr Boffin will answer my questions as I hold his opinions in the highest of regard.
I fear that if the F35B is binned then sadly the future will not be bright for fast jet operations. From a military point or should that be Naval point of view there should have really only ever been the one option. To build a ship that can only operate one type of aircraft that would be the last in its line and not ever going to be replaced was not the wisest of decisions.
Will ANY government be able to do a U turn on a U turn on I believe another U turn? There might be one U too many but hopefully folks will get my point. Are politicians more interested in their own political career as opposed to what is best for a nation?
As I said in my previous post the arguement for converting to UCAV operations is flawed simply because of the lack of launch, recovery equipment on these STOVL ships.
Not sure about keeping just the one?? (question)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
.....As for carrier vulnerability, isn't it strange that no-one mentions what a DF21 - allegedly capable of being guided to a 300m x 70m moving target - might do to a fixed installation where runway intersections, fuel farms, bomb dumps etc would be far easier to target and when hit be just as easily damaged? One suspects a ballistic HE warhead travelling at several hundred metres per second is likely to cause damage far in excess of Durandal-type cratering munitions and way beyond your normal runway repair capabilities.
As an aside. Is there the option to tow carrier-based aircraft away from their damaged runway and perhaps operate them from a handy piece of road? What of the storage of such aircraft, how much dispersal can you manage inside a '300m x 70m' airfield?
Both have their advantages, both disadvantages, but I'd suggest the examples you throw up as being game changers if delivered against an airfield are a little more serious if delivered against a ship at sea.
I would suggest that "operating from a handy bit of road" given the complexity of modern aircraft and their ASE, munitions etc is about as practical as operating from a "ship of opportunity" - ie it's not!
My point was merely that "vulnerability" is always held up as a weak point of carriers, but applies equally to land bases. Both have ways round this - movement and active defences in a ship/group, dispersion / alternate bases for a land base.
My point was merely that "vulnerability" is always held up as a weak point of carriers, but applies equally to land bases. Both have ways round this - movement and active defences in a ship/group, dispersion / alternate bases for a land base.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the DF21 has demonstrated it can hit a non moving target whose location was measured to the last inch. Also the obivious answer would be to fit Patriot batteries either on the carrier or on an Ageis escort so back to square one. Unless you are prepared to put a nulclear warhead on the incoming I think the carrier is fairly safe for a while.
If only they could, Dysonsphere. They'd be trying to target a high hypersonic, MaRV. Very difficult to execute an intercept when the target is so much faster than the interceptor. I think you need to be looking for a better solution. Even the USN haven't come up with one yet - not publicly anyway.
Originally Posted by Not_a_Boffin
...As for carrier vulnerability, isn't it strange that no-one mentions what a DF21 - allegedly capable of being guided to a 300m x 70m moving target - might do to a fixed installation where runway intersections, fuel farms, bomb dumps etc would be far easier to target and when hit be just as easily damaged? One suspects a ballistic HE warhead travelling at several hundred metres per second is likely to cause damage far in excess of Durandal-type cratering munitions and way beyond your normal runway repair capabilities.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I think you need to be looking for a better solution. Even the USN haven't come up with one yet - not publicly anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ORAC,
Haven't we been here before regarding this 'star wars' issue in the Reagan era?
When we were at the missile range in San Juan testing the then new MkII Sea Slug missle a US pilot suggested we fired our missile and he would then fire his target at it the the hope the two might meet up!!
Haven't we been here before regarding this 'star wars' issue in the Reagan era?
When we were at the missile range in San Juan testing the then new MkII Sea Slug missle a US pilot suggested we fired our missile and he would then fire his target at it the the hope the two might meet up!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kill chain question.
The not yet fielded carrier killer that everyone gets quite excited about...how is it cued?
I thought a satellite featured in the kill chain at some point and I am pretty sure that those things have been vulnerable for a while. Shooting down the inbound (unproven) weapons is probably quite tricky compared to removing another part of the chain.
I don't know what the other parts of the kill chain are - possibly because this thing doesn't actually exist in deployable form yet. But they have to be exploitable.
And let's not forget that removal could be done in soft ways vice kinetic.
Just saying.
The not yet fielded carrier killer that everyone gets quite excited about...how is it cued?
I thought a satellite featured in the kill chain at some point and I am pretty sure that those things have been vulnerable for a while. Shooting down the inbound (unproven) weapons is probably quite tricky compared to removing another part of the chain.
I don't know what the other parts of the kill chain are - possibly because this thing doesn't actually exist in deployable form yet. But they have to be exploitable.
And let's not forget that removal could be done in soft ways vice kinetic.
Just saying.
