Future Carrier (Including Costs)
I wonder how many white elephants long it is?
I audibly groaned when that was included on a piece during BBC news yesterday.
Particularly as I have no concept, or interest, in the size of a feetball pitch.
Particularly as I have no concept, or interest, in the size of a feetball pitch.
Btw feetball? - wasn't that in some novel by Compton MacKenzie?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,002
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
so, you are telling us all that your little carrier which needs its own gas will carry MORE jet fuel than a big carrier that is nuclear powered.
Size isn't everything, it only takes one torpedo to sink a carrier, nuclear powered or not..
Glendalegoon
Don't seem to recall USMC F35B being part of the question. Your contention was that a CVN wouldn't need as frequent refuellings and I asked you to do the maths on how often your CVN RAS'd AVCAT (or UNREP JP5 if you're struggling with UK terminology).
Seems you don't know your numbers. JP5 bunker capacity of CVN? Average sorties per day of a 50 TACAIR CAG? Average JP5 consumption per sortie?
Of course, we're not comparing like with like because QE is more like the Midway in her sortie generation capacity, but then no-one ever claimed she was capable of taking 90+ cabs aboard and being a CVN.
Point is - you'll empty the JP5/F44 bunkers in similar time, kettle or no kettle.
Nutloose - the Trents and diesels will be burning F76. Trials have shown it takes more than one torpedo to sink that size of ship.
Don't seem to recall USMC F35B being part of the question. Your contention was that a CVN wouldn't need as frequent refuellings and I asked you to do the maths on how often your CVN RAS'd AVCAT (or UNREP JP5 if you're struggling with UK terminology).
Seems you don't know your numbers. JP5 bunker capacity of CVN? Average sorties per day of a 50 TACAIR CAG? Average JP5 consumption per sortie?
Of course, we're not comparing like with like because QE is more like the Midway in her sortie generation capacity, but then no-one ever claimed she was capable of taking 90+ cabs aboard and being a CVN.
Point is - you'll empty the JP5/F44 bunkers in similar time, kettle or no kettle.
Nutloose - the Trents and diesels will be burning F76. Trials have shown it takes more than one torpedo to sink that size of ship.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not a boggin
tell me how many gallons (US) JP5 that the QE has.
typically a nimits class has 3 million to start.
go.
oh and please don't count fuel req'd to run the carrier itself
tell me how many gallons (US) JP5 that the QE has.
typically a nimits class has 3 million to start.
go.
oh and please don't count fuel req'd to run the carrier itself
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,002
Received 2,893 Likes
on
1,238 Posts
That will still be classified, remember we are talking modern carriers here, not something that was laid down in the 60's
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A figure of 8600T fuel capacity is often quoted. At 6.8lbs per US gallon for JP5, that's 2.832M gallons (US). But fewer budgies to drink it vs a Nimitz.
Previous posters have suggested that the QE class will generate sortie nos at a higher rate per ac than the CVN s. That would therefore increase the amount of fuel needed for the ac. There must be an advantage to nuclear power so my question is why has the QE class not got it? It's not as if we have no experience of such systems. Even the CdeG is nuclear powered so the relative size of the ships is not a factor either.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could one of the reasons CVF is not nuclear powered, is the cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors, besides that to power a CVF a new generation of larger reactors would have to be designed from scratch. Not sure how realistic designing these reactors would be.
In my opinion there are massive advantages to nuclear, but the MoD chose not to go that way on the grounds of cost. I suspect there may have been political considerations there too.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The main reason is cost. Not just to buy, develop and install, but to run. QECs do not have large crews, they are built around automation. The RN does not have the personnel to man two nuclear powered ships. It is a technology alien to the surface fleet. A whole new set of skills should have to be added to the equation which means more time and more money.
I don't think the French CVN is a good model for how to run a carrier.
The fact is that the QEC is a UK defence platform. It isn't a fleet carrier of old, it isn't a CVN it isn't a Commando carrier or a CVS.
It can be used in all the above roles and more, but the RN is not going back to the days of Eagle Ark Victorious et al. It is moving forward with two very useful platforms (ships) that will be capable of getting involved in all sorts of operations.
Yes they are going to need dieso and avcat. That's why there are some gentlemen in Korea or somewhere hammering some tin into the shape of the new Tide boats.
It used to be called the Fleet Train, and I think it is one of the few maritime evolutions the USN pioneered. They are still rather good at it in the USMSC.
I don't think the French CVN is a good model for how to run a carrier.
The fact is that the QEC is a UK defence platform. It isn't a fleet carrier of old, it isn't a CVN it isn't a Commando carrier or a CVS.
It can be used in all the above roles and more, but the RN is not going back to the days of Eagle Ark Victorious et al. It is moving forward with two very useful platforms (ships) that will be capable of getting involved in all sorts of operations.
Yes they are going to need dieso and avcat. That's why there are some gentlemen in Korea or somewhere hammering some tin into the shape of the new Tide boats.
It used to be called the Fleet Train, and I think it is one of the few maritime evolutions the USN pioneered. They are still rather good at it in the USMSC.
The decision to go non-nuclear was made around 1993-94. Back then we were all scratching our heads as to what to do with the western reactors that were approaching end of life, not to mention the Russian ones.
Surface ship reactor disposals were seen at the time as particularly problematic. We didn't have then (and still don't have now) anywhere to put the reactor compartments in the long-term once removed from the ship, as evidenced by the 7 boats still at Rosyth and the 10 or 11 in Devonport. The US nuclear recycling programme has a large trench on the Hanford reservation where they can store the RCs long-term.
United States naval reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Their Nuclear Ship Recycling Programme has been a real success, but has cost a lot of money.
All of that is before you include the design challenges of putting a reactor in a surface ship. The risk appetite for that was simply not there in the mid-90s and given where we are now, it was the right decision, although ironically the industrial base in terms of skilled people would probably be better off and there would be a little less risk in the PWR3 programme.
Surface ship reactor disposals were seen at the time as particularly problematic. We didn't have then (and still don't have now) anywhere to put the reactor compartments in the long-term once removed from the ship, as evidenced by the 7 boats still at Rosyth and the 10 or 11 in Devonport. The US nuclear recycling programme has a large trench on the Hanford reservation where they can store the RCs long-term.
United States naval reactors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Their Nuclear Ship Recycling Programme has been a real success, but has cost a lot of money.
All of that is before you include the design challenges of putting a reactor in a surface ship. The risk appetite for that was simply not there in the mid-90s and given where we are now, it was the right decision, although ironically the industrial base in terms of skilled people would probably be better off and there would be a little less risk in the PWR3 programme.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is somewhat convenient when cost and risk go hand in hand. We didn't go for nuclear because of cost, with a nod to risk. Likewise we didn't go for cats and traps due to cost with a nod to risk. I personally believe that building a nuclear powered cat and trap carrier was, is and always will be beyond British industry. In these cases it's straight forward to price yourself out of the market and watch the risk disappear.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: North East England
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of QEC class light relief.
Airfix criticised for not including any aircraft with scale model of HMS Queen Elizabeth | NewsBiscuit
Airfix criticised for not including any aircraft with scale model of HMS Queen Elizabeth | NewsBiscuit
Thread Starter
Going back to practical issues:
The launch of Queen Elizabeth was a great event, but a huge amount of work remains to be done. One issue that will cause headaches (and is already a source of concern to those involved) is that of preparing personnel for fixed wing operations. Whilst this is a hobby horse of mine, I am not alone.
WhiteOvies - 25 June 13:
orca - 26 June 13:
As well as these recent (June 2013) comments, the following comments are from just after the SDSR:
Bismark - 28 Oct 10:
Bismark - 29 Oct 2010:
Not a boffin - 30 Oct 10:
Pre SDSR the plan was that the best way to prepare for future fixed wing operations was to have Harriers aboard the CVS as often as possible, as the FAA Command Warrant Officer said in late 2009, after a period of years when having our own jets embarked was a rarity - however embarking American, Italian, and Spanish ones had maintained skills (and hopefully strengthened defence relationships).
Post SDSR, the idea of embarking foreign jets has been repeatedly dismissed, on the basis there is no need to practice skills that will be needed in future, as the future is not here yet.
This PDF document on route cause analysis contains an interesting example of analysis of factors involved in consistently hitting as baseball at a certain speed. Can you picture a similar thing for a jet taking off from a carrier, doing the mission and being safely recovered - OOW etc able to put ship on right heading/speed and get wind across deck, MEs flashing up engines, FLYCO managing the deck and airspace and deconflicting jets and helicopters, chockheads moving jets and coping with jet blast (not encountered with helicopters, and the F-35B will produce much more than Sea Harrier/Harrier), and so on (Operations Room personnel, WE maintainers, communicators, etc)?
As with most things, the value (and difficulty) is in integration. Aviation is of course a whole ship activity.
The launch of Queen Elizabeth was a great event, but a huge amount of work remains to be done. One issue that will cause headaches (and is already a source of concern to those involved) is that of preparing personnel for fixed wing operations. Whilst this is a hobby horse of mine, I am not alone.
WhiteOvies - 25 June 13:
The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.
All we need to see is a signed document from CAS saying that he will embark his jets as soon as the CO indicates his ship is ready in all respects to conduct aviation.
The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.
The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again.
The second sentence will indicate that he will disembark them only when the Air Management Organisation is fully up to speed, the Air Group is fulfilling ATO tasking, the Air Weapon supply team have produced weapons to surge capacity and these have been loaded on jets and dropped, the Yellow Coats can marshal, chain and chock a fourship in all weathers, whilst another fourship is taxying for take off. The jets will remain embarked until every Fighter Controller in the fleet has worked a fourship through Red Crown procedures and the JFACCHQ have established resilient comms for a week or two and Flyco have exercised being b#ggered about from dawn to dusk. Repeat all for night ops. When all this is crimped the TG in its entirety will take part in a COMAO based exercise of Neptune Warrior type scope and we'll call it good.
The third sentence will indicate that the jets will be back as soon as any of the above notice any degree of skill fade and the process will start again.
Bismark - 28 Oct 10:
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).
But what is missing in 2020 is the crews on the ships with any experience of aviation - from the CO downwards....I am sure the MAA will have something to say about that, indeed I wonder whether they are doing anything about it at the moment?
I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.
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!
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!
Post SDSR, the idea of embarking foreign jets has been repeatedly dismissed, on the basis there is no need to practice skills that will be needed in future, as the future is not here yet.
This PDF document on route cause analysis contains an interesting example of analysis of factors involved in consistently hitting as baseball at a certain speed. Can you picture a similar thing for a jet taking off from a carrier, doing the mission and being safely recovered - OOW etc able to put ship on right heading/speed and get wind across deck, MEs flashing up engines, FLYCO managing the deck and airspace and deconflicting jets and helicopters, chockheads moving jets and coping with jet blast (not encountered with helicopters, and the F-35B will produce much more than Sea Harrier/Harrier), and so on (Operations Room personnel, WE maintainers, communicators, etc)?
As with most things, the value (and difficulty) is in integration. Aviation is of course a whole ship activity.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 7th Jul 2014 at 15:41. Reason: Delete reference to JBDs (see SpazSinbad's reply) and insert link to PDF. Quotes dated. And so on...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you believe the UK carriers are vulnerable due to the fact they require oilers every so often then the only answer is a COMPLETELY nuclear powered battle group - including the cruisers, destroyers and frigates that make part of it
Even the USN backed off from that - and all the surface escorts for the CVN's run on oil. So N-power allows the carrier to stay at sea forever but maybe on its own if the oilers are all sunk - is that wise??
I personally think the money should have been spent elsewhere but we'll still have two carriers bigger than anything outside the USA and I'm sure the USN will be happy to see us take over some tasking from their big beasts
Even the USN backed off from that - and all the surface escorts for the CVN's run on oil. So N-power allows the carrier to stay at sea forever but maybe on its own if the oilers are all sunk - is that wise??
I personally think the money should have been spent elsewhere but we'll still have two carriers bigger than anything outside the USA and I'm sure the USN will be happy to see us take over some tasking from their big beasts
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
'WE Branch Fanatic' said: [however no JBD required - deleted]
Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort 11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review
Military Nuts -> The F-35 JSF/Lightning II thread
"...chockheads moving jets and coping with jet blast (not encountered with helicopters, and the F-35B will produce so much that CVF will have jet blast deflectors), and so on?"
“...In the final analysis, the decision has been taken to delete the JBD from the STOVL CVF design. Cdr Lison explains: "We determined from the CFD modelling that the legacy JBD did not offer adequate protection. Alternative designs were considered which offered some benefit, but two considerations persuaded us to delete the requirement.
"First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run."...”
"First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run."...”
HMS Compromise
I'm sure its a great design and built to very high standards but...it could have been a contender.
The lack of a nuclear power plant and a catapult have severely compromised its effectiveness, why the no nuclear, as others have said probably cost. Its not as if the Royal Navy do not have any nuclear experience with their fleet of subs.
With a kettle powering the thing there would have been considerably more space available for (EDIT JP stuff, thanks HTB) and other niceties. Should WW III break out and the enemy target your oilers and other resupply ships at least you can still move and keep your defensive systems online, perhaps sailing for a friendly port, run out of oil for propulsion and thats it, your somebodies salvage.
Fuel consumption ,well I can understand its classified, I guess the turbines are to be used for a high speed dash or to assist getting the JSF airborne sailing flat out into the wind. The onboard diesels are probably for cruising and powering the ship board systems.
The QE 2 (a few yrs old now is approx 70,000 tonnes displacement) has a range of 7,500 miles at cruising speed or flat at at max speed a duration of ten days. Could these figures be in the ball park for the new carrier.
Crowsnest, well its better than nothing but its no Hawkeye, nor can the new carrier handle those useful cargo lugging aircraft the USN use.
And the lack of cats means your JSF's payload is a compromise, just how much weight can the JSF can carry using the ski ramp will compromise its range/ speed and useful weapons load.
As others have said its probably down to cost (nuclear plant and staffing) plus a bit of politics, also not every port in the world welcomes a nuclear ship. So the new carrier will be able to sail anywhere, part Royal naval asset, part royal yacht Britannia.
No doubt it will be a useful ship but I feel it could have been so much more.
The lack of a nuclear power plant and a catapult have severely compromised its effectiveness, why the no nuclear, as others have said probably cost. Its not as if the Royal Navy do not have any nuclear experience with their fleet of subs.
With a kettle powering the thing there would have been considerably more space available for (EDIT JP stuff, thanks HTB) and other niceties. Should WW III break out and the enemy target your oilers and other resupply ships at least you can still move and keep your defensive systems online, perhaps sailing for a friendly port, run out of oil for propulsion and thats it, your somebodies salvage.
Fuel consumption ,well I can understand its classified, I guess the turbines are to be used for a high speed dash or to assist getting the JSF airborne sailing flat out into the wind. The onboard diesels are probably for cruising and powering the ship board systems.
The QE 2 (a few yrs old now is approx 70,000 tonnes displacement) has a range of 7,500 miles at cruising speed or flat at at max speed a duration of ten days. Could these figures be in the ball park for the new carrier.
Crowsnest, well its better than nothing but its no Hawkeye, nor can the new carrier handle those useful cargo lugging aircraft the USN use.
And the lack of cats means your JSF's payload is a compromise, just how much weight can the JSF can carry using the ski ramp will compromise its range/ speed and useful weapons load.
As others have said its probably down to cost (nuclear plant and staffing) plus a bit of politics, also not every port in the world welcomes a nuclear ship. So the new carrier will be able to sail anywhere, part Royal naval asset, part royal yacht Britannia.
No doubt it will be a useful ship but I feel it could have been so much more.
Last edited by Fat Magpie; 7th Jul 2014 at 15:06.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly enough EVERY carrier that has fought in air-to-air and ship -to ship action used oil
there is no reason for N Power if the rest of the battle group still use oil
We don't have a large commercial Nplant available and it would take years to develope one (the French took 15 years and the CDG is still not right)
The two new UK carriers would wipe the floor with anyone other than the USN in a fleet action - so why do we need a Gerald Ford???
there is no reason for N Power if the rest of the battle group still use oil
We don't have a large commercial Nplant available and it would take years to develope one (the French took 15 years and the CDG is still not right)
The two new UK carriers would wipe the floor with anyone other than the USN in a fleet action - so why do we need a Gerald Ford???