Future Carrier (Including Costs)
EP99
The Ocean you refer to did indeed take 40 aircraft on 20000 te. Trouble is they were Seafires, Sea Furies & Fireflies (MTOW ~ 10000lbs), drinking thimbles of AVGAS and with stall speeds ~ 70kts. Even the smallest a/c under consideration for CVF weighs three times that and has a stall speed in the 130-140kt range.
There are NO ways in UK big enough to build a proper carrier since Swan Hunter dug up their slipways to put in a small floating dock. Harland & Wolff have a big enough dock but demolished their panel line last year, leaving Rosyth, which can fit the ship in dock but not build all the bits - hence the plan to build it at several facilities around the UK and then stitch it together at Rosyth......
F35-C is the proper carrier version and seems to be trundling along quite nicely - its the UK/USMC version "Dave" as it is known on these boards that is having issues.
Your JSENAC would certainly solve any protection issues, by the time the we and the French had agreed who was i/c, the op would be OBE anyway.
The day the Gripen gets an export order against Rafale, F18E or Mr Mikoyans Fulcrum-K (already sold to India as part of the Gorshkov refit package), Mr BAES will finally deserve his bonus package.
The Ocean you refer to did indeed take 40 aircraft on 20000 te. Trouble is they were Seafires, Sea Furies & Fireflies (MTOW ~ 10000lbs), drinking thimbles of AVGAS and with stall speeds ~ 70kts. Even the smallest a/c under consideration for CVF weighs three times that and has a stall speed in the 130-140kt range.
There are NO ways in UK big enough to build a proper carrier since Swan Hunter dug up their slipways to put in a small floating dock. Harland & Wolff have a big enough dock but demolished their panel line last year, leaving Rosyth, which can fit the ship in dock but not build all the bits - hence the plan to build it at several facilities around the UK and then stitch it together at Rosyth......
F35-C is the proper carrier version and seems to be trundling along quite nicely - its the UK/USMC version "Dave" as it is known on these boards that is having issues.
Your JSENAC would certainly solve any protection issues, by the time the we and the French had agreed who was i/c, the op would be OBE anyway.
The day the Gripen gets an export order against Rafale, F18E or Mr Mikoyans Fulcrum-K (already sold to India as part of the Gorshkov refit package), Mr BAES will finally deserve his bonus package.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers, Harriers, Schmarriers!
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
EP99
The Ocean you refer to did indeed take 40 aircraft on 20000 te. Trouble is they were Seafires, Sea Furies & Fireflies (MTOW ~ 10000lbs), drinking thimbles of AVGAS and with stall speeds ~ 70kts. Even the smallest a/c under consideration for CVF weighs three times that and has a stall speed in the 130-140kt range.
There are NO ways in UK big enough to build a proper carrier since Swan Hunter dug up their slipways to put in a small floating dock. Harland & Wolff have a big enough dock but demolished their panel line last year, leaving Rosyth, which can fit the ship in dock but not build all the bits - hence the plan to build it at several facilities around the UK and then stitch it together at Rosyth......
F35-C is the proper carrier version and seems to be trundling along quite nicely - its the UK/USMC version "Dave" as it is known on these boards that is having issues.
Your JSENAC would certainly solve any protection issues, by the time the we and the French had agreed who was i/c, the op would be OBE anyway.
The day the Gripen gets an export order against Rafale, F18E or Mr Mikoyans Fulcrum-K (already sold to India as part of the Gorshkov refit package), Mr BAES will finally deserve his bonus package.
The Ocean you refer to did indeed take 40 aircraft on 20000 te. Trouble is they were Seafires, Sea Furies & Fireflies (MTOW ~ 10000lbs), drinking thimbles of AVGAS and with stall speeds ~ 70kts. Even the smallest a/c under consideration for CVF weighs three times that and has a stall speed in the 130-140kt range.
There are NO ways in UK big enough to build a proper carrier since Swan Hunter dug up their slipways to put in a small floating dock. Harland & Wolff have a big enough dock but demolished their panel line last year, leaving Rosyth, which can fit the ship in dock but not build all the bits - hence the plan to build it at several facilities around the UK and then stitch it together at Rosyth......
F35-C is the proper carrier version and seems to be trundling along quite nicely - its the UK/USMC version "Dave" as it is known on these boards that is having issues.
Your JSENAC would certainly solve any protection issues, by the time the we and the French had agreed who was i/c, the op would be OBE anyway.
The day the Gripen gets an export order against Rafale, F18E or Mr Mikoyans Fulcrum-K (already sold to India as part of the Gorshkov refit package), Mr BAES will finally deserve his bonus package.
Now there's a thought!, perhaps we NEED an aircraft with [precisely such characteristics, I think, if I was dug in an worried about what was coming over the horizon, I would be rather anxious about aircraft with long hang-times, slow stall speeds, and big guns. ( remember Pucara?) However, point taken and agreed with!.
The question of who commands should not be a major problem, for the period specified ( e.g 150 op days/year ) it would be a given, if something blew up then, provided the operation was UN sanctioned, then it would still not be a problem. Remember, this idea does not prevent any participating nation building its own carriers for unilateral use, it just makes the utilisation of such vessels rather more cost effective. If you do not have UN sanction then, brother, you are on your own.
Navy has another rather big problem, at present DSR has done rather well in terms of modern assets. Once you have carriers you need to have URG assets, and these simply do not exist, if you are conducting littoral operations you need the ships to get the stuff, and the men, where you need them. You will also need the ships to support the ( conventional) carrier. We do not have them.
The whole question of CEC is actually a crucial one. Probably best solved by embarking CEC assets on RFA platforms.( I know, I know), even if they do not carry the missiles themselves they can greatly extend the sanitation limit of the air defence. Screwtops could also do the job, to an extent, but with only 2/3 carriers they take up a hell of a lot of deck space and resources. As to whether Aster can actually do the job at long range, we don't know.
The other problem we are going to face is attack from fast missile boats, given the ubiquitous nature of the load-out capablities of the SM-2 magazine there are some intriguing possibilities there, including borrowing some US army missile assets. That, as they say, is another story!
Regards
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tourist
Erm, so only buy the good stuff?
The Russians however may well be more amenable, and, as we all know, they make some lovely stuff. Imagine, if we'd bought some IL-76's, put Rolls engines and US avionics on them, we could carry lots of Warriors about without wondering how the hell we were going to pay for the A-400m or whatever its called, or indeed for the Globemasters we will no doubt purchase when the lease runs out.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thinking laterally, on such lines, concerning the FSTA, I see that someone has refurbishing two ex-Ukranian IL-86 Midas tankers to offer for the USN tanking contract. First one in the USA as we speak. The Ukranians have, reportedly, another 18 avavilable. 3 point, NATO standard baskets.
(Thinks, that´ll drag Beagle in with a comment)
(Thinks, that´ll drag Beagle in with a comment)
My mistake! I meant to say "naval export order" - of course Gripen has done well as a low-cost high capability land based fighter, particularly since F16 is still about.
Must preview post before submitting, must preview etc.....
EP99 - by DSR assets, do you mean Afloat Support? If so see MARS project which is largely driven by need to provide huge quantities of F44, F76, bombs, vittles, bin bags & bog roll. They are funded (this week) and part of DIS was specifically written to allow them to be built as cost-effectively as possible.........They are scheduled to be (mostly) in service by the time both CVF are available - it may even happen, Smart Procurement has to work once, just to prove the exception to the rule.
CEC is probably a non-issue. The USN are actually quite reluctant to allow anyone else to integrate with it so probably won't happen. Would need decent sensors on RFA to even consider it. Makes a decent MASC asset like Hawkeye 2000 even more crucial. Would even allow better integration with FR/US forces. BTW your faith in multinational command structures is laudable, but a touch optimistic methinks.
MLRS is not and never will be qualified for Mk41 use. It would also be very difficult to employ against FIAC using white traffic for cover.
regards
Must preview post before submitting, must preview etc.....
EP99 - by DSR assets, do you mean Afloat Support? If so see MARS project which is largely driven by need to provide huge quantities of F44, F76, bombs, vittles, bin bags & bog roll. They are funded (this week) and part of DIS was specifically written to allow them to be built as cost-effectively as possible.........They are scheduled to be (mostly) in service by the time both CVF are available - it may even happen, Smart Procurement has to work once, just to prove the exception to the rule.
CEC is probably a non-issue. The USN are actually quite reluctant to allow anyone else to integrate with it so probably won't happen. Would need decent sensors on RFA to even consider it. Makes a decent MASC asset like Hawkeye 2000 even more crucial. Would even allow better integration with FR/US forces. BTW your faith in multinational command structures is laudable, but a touch optimistic methinks.
MLRS is not and never will be qualified for Mk41 use. It would also be very difficult to employ against FIAC using white traffic for cover.
regards
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fascinating Stuff!
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
My mistake! I meant to say "naval export order" - of course Gripen has done well as a low-cost high capability land based fighter, particularly since F16 is still about.
Must preview post before submitting, must preview etc.....
EP99 - by DSR assets, do you mean Afloat Support? If so see MARS project which is largely driven by need to provide huge quantities of F44, F76, bombs, vittles, bin bags & bog roll. They are funded (this week) and part of DIS was specifically written to allow them to be built as cost-effectively as possible.........They are scheduled to be (mostly) in service by the time both CVF are available - it may even happen, Smart Procurement has to work once, just to prove the exception to the rule.
CEC is probably a non-issue. The USN are actually quite reluctant to allow anyone else to integrate with it so probably won't happen. Would need decent sensors on RFA to even consider it. Makes a decent MASC asset like Hawkeye 2000 even more crucial. Would even allow better integration with FR/US forces. BTW your faith in multinational command structures is laudable, but a touch optimistic methinks.
MLRS is not and never will be qualified for Mk41 use. It would also be very difficult to employ against FIAC using white traffic for cover.
regards
Must preview post before submitting, must preview etc.....
EP99 - by DSR assets, do you mean Afloat Support? If so see MARS project which is largely driven by need to provide huge quantities of F44, F76, bombs, vittles, bin bags & bog roll. They are funded (this week) and part of DIS was specifically written to allow them to be built as cost-effectively as possible.........They are scheduled to be (mostly) in service by the time both CVF are available - it may even happen, Smart Procurement has to work once, just to prove the exception to the rule.
CEC is probably a non-issue. The USN are actually quite reluctant to allow anyone else to integrate with it so probably won't happen. Would need decent sensors on RFA to even consider it. Makes a decent MASC asset like Hawkeye 2000 even more crucial. Would even allow better integration with FR/US forces. BTW your faith in multinational command structures is laudable, but a touch optimistic methinks.
MLRS is not and never will be qualified for Mk41 use. It would also be very difficult to employ against FIAC using white traffic for cover.
regards
If we cannot use CEC, or develop our own, then the threat we are considering operating against is not a "first world" one. If it is not then we do not need full up carriers. Granted, in a World where the Navy is prepared to use aircraft without A.I capabilities on its carriers anything is a possibility! What, for example, is the point of having a Sampson radar without either a.i. equipped aircraft or a viable, layered, area defence system? and this against the aircraft threat, let alone missile defence. If the missile can do 100 clicks, and the radar can see 20 at low level then the mismatch is likely to put you at the bottom of the ocean. I guess most of the planning guys are too young to remember "Atlantic Conveyor" (I seem to remember that the tapes showed that engagement as not being too good an advertisement for chaff!)
regards
Incidentally, I wasn't thinking primarily of MLRS, rather more of ATACMS but with a payload of BATS.
Fully concur re the Conveyor - what it actually showed was that a "second-world" airforce could do immense damage if long-range situational awareness for the AAWC was poor or missing. Hence the critical importance of MASC (what was Future Organic AEW). Problem is that MASC has always been a very poor relation to the JCA and the CVF and hence always trying to catch up. The danger is now that the Bags are providing such a useful overland capability, that the requirementeers concentrate on that to the detriment of it's two primary roles - Fleet AD and strike co-ordination - neither of which can be adequately performed by an R/W asset.
The ELS requirements (what was DSR) have always had carrier first, OTS second. The current programme calls for (and allegedly) funds different ships for each capability, 3 CVBG support and 3 JSBL ships (and there are good reasons for that). The worry is that cost escalation or slippage in replacing the fleet oilers (the most pressing requirement irrespective of CVF or JSBL) will put the mockers on the rest of it.
The ELS requirements (what was DSR) have always had carrier first, OTS second. The current programme calls for (and allegedly) funds different ships for each capability, 3 CVBG support and 3 JSBL ships (and there are good reasons for that). The worry is that cost escalation or slippage in replacing the fleet oilers (the most pressing requirement irrespective of CVF or JSBL) will put the mockers on the rest of it.
Thread Starter
MASC will be a key enabler for the future, including submarines and forces ashore as well as aircraft and surface ships. Can't help thinking that V22 would be the best platform in the absence of Hawkeye. Higher altitude than a helicopter, higher speed etc etc.
As discussed here.
A piece from the MOD website: The name is Band, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band
Given that the vast majority of the economic power in the world lies within 100 miles of the coast, and that during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, over 90 per cent of military equipment and supplies went by ship, it's a naval function that is likely to endure.
In addition there is what Sir Jonathon calls the "hard-hitting end" of the Royal Navy, which is now focused on the UK's carrier fleet:
"Our defence policy requires us to provide air power when we want to, wherever we want to in the world. If you want that policy you have to have carriers. So you take your air power with you, and you use the high seas to affect the land.
"The reason we're getting big carriers is that we want to get a weight of airpower on day one of the war. And that is best done on two bigger platforms than on three or four smaller ones."
As discussed here.
A piece from the MOD website: The name is Band, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band
Given that the vast majority of the economic power in the world lies within 100 miles of the coast, and that during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, over 90 per cent of military equipment and supplies went by ship, it's a naval function that is likely to endure.
In addition there is what Sir Jonathon calls the "hard-hitting end" of the Royal Navy, which is now focused on the UK's carrier fleet:
"Our defence policy requires us to provide air power when we want to, wherever we want to in the world. If you want that policy you have to have carriers. So you take your air power with you, and you use the high seas to affect the land.
"The reason we're getting big carriers is that we want to get a weight of airpower on day one of the war. And that is best done on two bigger platforms than on three or four smaller ones."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Midlands
Age: 55
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
True but I imagine we will follow suit. Has there ever been an aircraft which was operated by different countries and with different names?
I'll take my snorkel parker off now.
VV, oh yes... Lots.
I'll just borrow mlc's parka for a moment along with the tupperware sandwich box...
We renamed several US aircraft during WW2, not just the Wildcat -
The Vought Vindicator became the Chesapeake
The Grumman Avenger became the Tarpon
The Grumman Hellcat was meant to be called the Gannet, but at some point just before service entry the US name was reinstated
The Curtiss SBC-4 Helldiver (the original 'Helldiver') was christend the Cleveland in British service, while the Brewster Buccaneer became the Bermuda. The Chesapeake and Bermuda turned out to be rubbish, which is why only sad anoraks like me have heard of them.
The USAAF started out calling its P-51s 'Apaches' but adopted the RAF's choice of Mustang instead (but perhaps not for the A-36 dive bomber variant, depending upon which historian you side with).
The French operated several German aircraft after the war (building more of some of them in France, in fact) - the Storch was the Criquet, the Ju-52 the Toucan and the Bf108 the Pingouin.
I'll just borrow mlc's parka for a moment along with the tupperware sandwich box...
We renamed several US aircraft during WW2, not just the Wildcat -
The Vought Vindicator became the Chesapeake
The Grumman Avenger became the Tarpon
The Grumman Hellcat was meant to be called the Gannet, but at some point just before service entry the US name was reinstated
The Curtiss SBC-4 Helldiver (the original 'Helldiver') was christend the Cleveland in British service, while the Brewster Buccaneer became the Bermuda. The Chesapeake and Bermuda turned out to be rubbish, which is why only sad anoraks like me have heard of them.
The USAAF started out calling its P-51s 'Apaches' but adopted the RAF's choice of Mustang instead (but perhaps not for the A-36 dive bomber variant, depending upon which historian you side with).
The French operated several German aircraft after the war (building more of some of them in France, in fact) - the Storch was the Criquet, the Ju-52 the Toucan and the Bf108 the Pingouin.
