Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PDR1,
An USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG) typically comprises - depending on the threat level:
The US Navy Aircraft Carriers
- 1 x CVN.
- 1 x Ticonderoga Class cruiser.
- 2 x Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers.
- 1 x Los Angeles Class attack submarine.
- 1 x combined ammunition, oiler, supply ship.
During Fleet Week San Diego, I have had the opportunity to tour the USS Arleigh-Burke a couple of times and - considering the lead ship was commissioned in July 1991 - it is still a very impressive piece of kit packing a punch that makes a Type 45 look distinctly puny. The incremental improvements made to the ships in the class continue to the day with up to 42 new Flight III ships in the class being planned - the first 3 have already been launched.
Arleigh-Burke Armament - latest configuration - cost $1.843B
96-cell Vertical Launch System loaded as required with these options:
Tomahawk surface attack cruise missile
RIM-66 Standard medium range SAM with ASuW option
RIM-161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense missile (AEGIS)
RIM-162 ESSM SAM
RUM-39 Vertical launch ASROC
RIM-174A ERAM (130>250 nm range)
2 x Mk 141 quad Harpoon launcher
1 x 5" Mk 45 gun
Phalanx CIWS
2 x 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon
2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 45 Armament - cost $1.5B (at 1.5 USD/GBP)
1 x 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS with these options:
Aster 15 missiles (1.7>30 km range)
Aster 30 missiles (3>120 km range)
2 x quad Harpoon launchers
1 x 4.5" Mk 8 gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Oerlikon 30mm
2 x Miniguns
6 x GPMGs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer
Personally, I just don't see how the UK is ever going to be able to provide the level of protection to a QE Class carrier that it's investment and embarked assets merit in a multi-threat environment (aircraft, TBM, multiple surface combatants, SSN/SSK).
On the other hand, if Raytheon are to be believed, you're relatively safe if a late model Arleigh Burke is around (tongue in cheek banter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-_4tfWR4c
An USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG) typically comprises - depending on the threat level:
The US Navy Aircraft Carriers
- 1 x CVN.
- 1 x Ticonderoga Class cruiser.
- 2 x Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers.
- 1 x Los Angeles Class attack submarine.
- 1 x combined ammunition, oiler, supply ship.
During Fleet Week San Diego, I have had the opportunity to tour the USS Arleigh-Burke a couple of times and - considering the lead ship was commissioned in July 1991 - it is still a very impressive piece of kit packing a punch that makes a Type 45 look distinctly puny. The incremental improvements made to the ships in the class continue to the day with up to 42 new Flight III ships in the class being planned - the first 3 have already been launched.
Arleigh-Burke Armament - latest configuration - cost $1.843B
96-cell Vertical Launch System loaded as required with these options:
Tomahawk surface attack cruise missile
RIM-66 Standard medium range SAM with ASuW option
RIM-161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense missile (AEGIS)
RIM-162 ESSM SAM
RUM-39 Vertical launch ASROC
RIM-174A ERAM (130>250 nm range)
2 x Mk 141 quad Harpoon launcher
1 x 5" Mk 45 gun
Phalanx CIWS
2 x 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon
2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 45 Armament - cost $1.5B (at 1.5 USD/GBP)
1 x 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS with these options:
Aster 15 missiles (1.7>30 km range)
Aster 30 missiles (3>120 km range)
2 x quad Harpoon launchers
1 x 4.5" Mk 8 gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Oerlikon 30mm
2 x Miniguns
6 x GPMGs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer
Personally, I just don't see how the UK is ever going to be able to provide the level of protection to a QE Class carrier that it's investment and embarked assets merit in a multi-threat environment (aircraft, TBM, multiple surface combatants, SSN/SSK).
On the other hand, if Raytheon are to be believed, you're relatively safe if a late model Arleigh Burke is around (tongue in cheek banter).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-_4tfWR4c
with up to 42 new Flight III ships in the class being planned - the first 3 have already been launched.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During Fleet Week San Diego, I have had the opportunity to tour the USS Arleigh-Burke a couple of times and - considering the lead ship was commissioned in July 1991 - it is still a very impressive piece of kit packing a punch that makes a Type 45 look distinctly puny. [/URL]
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trouble is the lack of surface to surface missiles on the T45 - I guess the initial cost was too high and so we're retrofitting old systems from the T22's - but only 8 launchers on 4 boats
and each CVN has 4 surface ships and an SSN as escort - I doubt we'd be able to keep both carriers at sea together if that became an RN standard
and each CVN has 4 surface ships and an SSN as escort - I doubt we'd be able to keep both carriers at sea together if that became an RN standard
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T45 is an Air (and maybe soon space?) defender.
Adding endless all round capabilities doesn't work any better at sea than it does in the air. You end up with a master of none.
Adding endless all round capabilities doesn't work any better at sea than it does in the air. You end up with a master of none.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been multi-role aircraft, and there have been multi role ships, but often they are not great at anything...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We now need warm water and cold water versions...................
Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water | IHS Jane's 360
Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 June 2016
Senior defence industry officials revealed during testimony to a parliamentary inquiry on 7 June that the problems with the integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system on the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers are more acute in warm environments such as the Gulf.
Rolls-Royce's Tomas Leahy claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to specify that the Type 45s would have to operate in warm environments. "There was a specification for Type 45, the engine met that specification," he told the inquiry. "Are the conditions in the Gulf in line with that specification? No they are not, so the equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions than initially required by that specification."
"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf," BAE Sysyems Maritime Managing Director John Hudson said. "It was not designed explicitly or uniquely for operations in the Gulf."
He said that BAE had nevertheless attempted to design the ship so it would experience a "graceful degradation" of its performance at high temperatures, but then added that the exact opposite was happening.
"What we have found in the Gulf is that it takes the gas turbine generator bit into an area which is sub-optimal for the generator, and also we found that with the drive units that the cooling system created condensation within the drive units which caused faults and that caused electrical failures as well," he said. These electrical failures leave the Type 45s unable to operate their propulsion, sensor, or weapons systems.
Leahy suggested the problems would be experienced by all gas turbines, not just the Rolls-Royce WR-21 engines fitted to the Type 45. "It's not a fault of the WR-21. Even if it was a simple-cycle gas turbine it will still suffer the same fate in those circumstances, it's a law of physics."
Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water | IHS Jane's 360
Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water
Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 June 2016
Senior defence industry officials revealed during testimony to a parliamentary inquiry on 7 June that the problems with the integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system on the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers are more acute in warm environments such as the Gulf.
Rolls-Royce's Tomas Leahy claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to specify that the Type 45s would have to operate in warm environments. "There was a specification for Type 45, the engine met that specification," he told the inquiry. "Are the conditions in the Gulf in line with that specification? No they are not, so the equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions than initially required by that specification."
"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf," BAE Sysyems Maritime Managing Director John Hudson said. "It was not designed explicitly or uniquely for operations in the Gulf."
He said that BAE had nevertheless attempted to design the ship so it would experience a "graceful degradation" of its performance at high temperatures, but then added that the exact opposite was happening.
"What we have found in the Gulf is that it takes the gas turbine generator bit into an area which is sub-optimal for the generator, and also we found that with the drive units that the cooling system created condensation within the drive units which caused faults and that caused electrical failures as well," he said. These electrical failures leave the Type 45s unable to operate their propulsion, sensor, or weapons systems.
Leahy suggested the problems would be experienced by all gas turbines, not just the Rolls-Royce WR-21 engines fitted to the Type 45. "It's not a fault of the WR-21. Even if it was a simple-cycle gas turbine it will still suffer the same fate in those circumstances, it's a law of physics."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a carrier is cruising along with side lift down a Somali in a motorboat with a missile can fire it into the open area. The consequent explosion amongst aircraft, fuel etc can sink the carrier.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf,""
when was this? presumably it was a carry over from thr NFR-90 & Horizon projects - I'd suspect the former as after 1990 it should must have been bloody obvious we'd be operating in the Gulf........................ idiotic really...................
when was this? presumably it was a carry over from thr NFR-90 & Horizon projects - I'd suspect the former as after 1990 it should must have been bloody obvious we'd be operating in the Gulf........................ idiotic really...................
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
So will our Carriers be unable to operate properly in warm water areas too?
Perhaps we should have built nuclear powered ships instead!
Perhaps we should have built nuclear powered ships instead!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please excuse my ignorance, but what type of arrestor gear is available on our new carrier in the event of an F-35B's lift fan failure and the aircraft being forced to land conventionally?
Please excuse my ignorance, but what type of arrestor gear is available on our new carrier in the event of an F-35B's lift fan failure and the aircraft being forced to land conventionally?
Edit: I should imagine the economics are fairly straightforward. Multiply the number of aircraft you expect to lose from lift fan failure by the cost of each aircraft. If that number is less than the combined cost of installing and operating dedicated arrestor gear on the carriers, and of adding suitable hardware to each airframe, then it's not worth doing...