Future Carrier (Including Costs)
HMS Queen Elizabeth Takes To The Seas
"She's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD...." 0:35
Which is exactly what she is. "She isn't just a ship" by any means...far from it. QEC will project AIR POWER from the sea for decades to come. However, if you wish to promote her bite, please remember that her teeth are the embarked air and RM assets. The ship's raison d'être is to get the embarked "teeth" arms where they need to be to achieve the broader mission. It isn't a Dreadnought. It's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD, as the good Cdre clearly states.
"She's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD...." 0:35
Which is exactly what she is. "She isn't just a ship" by any means...far from it. QEC will project AIR POWER from the sea for decades to come. However, if you wish to promote her bite, please remember that her teeth are the embarked air and RM assets. The ship's raison d'être is to get the embarked "teeth" arms where they need to be to achieve the broader mission. It isn't a Dreadnought. It's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD, as the good Cdre clearly states.
"This is a very flexible sea base. To see her as just a ship, perhaps, is a bit simplistic. She's [also] a mobile four-and-a-half acre airfield able to do a whole range of operations from her. So I think what this means for UK defence is she'll be deployed around the world, she'll be a very flexible asset and she'll host a whole bunch of capabilities from all three services into the future. Very exciting times ahead."
So he regards QNLZ primarily as a ship. He doesn't seem to be conceding that she is just a "floating airfield" nor, indeed, "just a ship". She'll be equally capable of performing defence diplomatic missions, such as disaster relief or conducting goodwill visits, as launching a strike package against an inland target.I think we'll have to agree to disagree. From your caustic remarks about the conduct of air operations from a CVS, am I safe in assuming that you did not take comfortably to being embarked under the white ensign?
Thread Starter
WEBF,
I'm sorry but ultimately a carrier is a floating airfield, but with more complication than a land-based airfield. Cdre Jerry Kyd has even said so himself, on the record, and he's skipper of QNLZ.
Other than the Ship being on DFC, ostensibly assuring that recoveries are "into wind" and maximise WOD to reduce relative speed over the deck on landing, all the other things you list are just as applicable to an airfield.
You can squinny all you want about my point of view, but I've plenty of experience flying from land and carriers. Bottom line: the carrier is a floating airfield and has all the departments and procedures required to make it an effective one. They are slightly modified to land-based, but that's only to achieve a safe launch and recovery.
I'm sorry but ultimately a carrier is a floating airfield, but with more complication than a land-based airfield. Cdre Jerry Kyd has even said so himself, on the record, and he's skipper of QNLZ.
Other than the Ship being on DFC, ostensibly assuring that recoveries are "into wind" and maximise WOD to reduce relative speed over the deck on landing, all the other things you list are just as applicable to an airfield.
You can squinny all you want about my point of view, but I've plenty of experience flying from land and carriers. Bottom line: the carrier is a floating airfield and has all the departments and procedures required to make it an effective one. They are slightly modified to land-based, but that's only to achieve a safe launch and recovery.
The point is a carrier has all the functions and faculties of an airfield packed into a small physical space, and then some more, making integration critical. Most of the things need to make flying possible and safe are provided by the ship, not the embarked squadrons.
On the old Harrier Decision and other threads (like this one from 2006), it was clear that some (RAF I assume) types thought that carrier flying had no perishable skills as "we turn up to the ship and fly.....". To use the things I stated for an aircraft recovery...
Ship on right course/speed - OOW/bridge watchkeepers/Navigator/Marine Engineers
Clear deck - Chockheads, also a whole ship need to avoid FOD
Radar - Warfare branch operators and Weapon Engineering maintainers
Radio Communications - WE(CIS) (communicators) and WE maintainers
Visual aids - WE maintainers
Therefore it can be helpful to consider a carrier operating aircraft as a warship operating her weapon system - her aircraft.
Warship? You believe the Carrier is the same sort of warship as an FFDD?! Cdre Kyd has himself stated that the carrier "is a floating airfield", so he (I presume) is also of "my ilk". Seriously, the floating airfield requires defending - not like many land-based airfields sure, but FOBs require defences of a different nature - but ultimately the weapon system on a carrier are the organic assets that take off and land on it. A couple of CIWS and .50 cals does not make the carrier the same "ilk" of warship as an FFDD. Not by a long stretch, yet the fundamentals of fire and flood control, manoeuvres and air C2 endure.
Stop deluding yourselves - the Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth hath said so from his very mouth and he knows better than you!
Oh, and ref your elitist point about land-based AFCO successfully carrying out the timing, i've personally witnessed absolute carnage at sea when I flew Harriers from CVS's....at one stage we were invited to conduct Case 3 approaches and join the "cake stand", only to have to point out to the sea-based ATCO that the cake stand at that time was in a mountain. The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other.
Stop deluding yourselves - the Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth hath said so from his very mouth and he knows better than you!
Oh, and ref your elitist point about land-based AFCO successfully carrying out the timing, i've personally witnessed absolute carnage at sea when I flew Harriers from CVS's....at one stage we were invited to conduct Case 3 approaches and join the "cake stand", only to have to point out to the sea-based ATCO that the cake stand at that time was in a mountain. The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other.
....the weapon system on a carrier are the organic assets that take off and land on it.
Yes - which means the ship needs to be in the right place, right course and speed, radar etc working, communications circuits set up... So that makes the carrier a warship with very long range weapons?
The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other.
I wonder if some of the problems you raised were due to the lack of practice whilst Joint Force Harrier was committed to Afghanistan? But anyway - surely this points to the need for integration? The carrier is a platform for her air group, in the same way as any other ship with sensors/weapons. Aircraft launch or recovery demands actions from the ship and limits her ability to manoeuvre at will, not unlike a frigate deploying a towed array sonar, a destroyer firing a missile, or a LPD trying to offload troops into landing craft.
Meanwhile a long article from an RN Wig of Big Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB 'bout difference between FAA & crab ops:
Old buggers who can't get past the loss of the Sea Harrier, still banging on about the Falklands.
Until the higher levels of the 3 services stop sniping at each other - and that is all of them - and move forward instead of harking back (a particularly Naval tradition) then the politicians will continue to muddle on, wondering why the 3 main proponents of Defence don't seem to be able to get along.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We have reached out to"
Well with patter like that I'm sure that every diversity will be both managed and catered for both now and in the future ..
Well with patter like that I'm sure that every diversity will be both managed and catered for both now and in the future ..
Originally Posted by [email protected]
...Until the higher levels of the 3 services stop sniping at each other - and that is all of them - and move forward instead of harking back (a particularly Naval tradition)...
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These inter-service spats are so predictable and so depressing - all you do is give the Treasury a weapon to pick one off after the other
Even the most blinkered must be able to see the whole and only point of an aircraft carrier is the Air Group? But the Air Group is totally dependent on the skills of the ship's crew to put them in the correct place and the correct time.
You need BOTH, working together, to operate....................
Even the most blinkered must be able to see the whole and only point of an aircraft carrier is the Air Group? But the Air Group is totally dependent on the skills of the ship's crew to put them in the correct place and the correct time.
You need BOTH, working together, to operate....................
I believe we are all in violent agreement. The air group of a carrier is part of an integrated weapons system that depends on all other components working properly.
However, the carrier has other functions too. To anyone who insists on trying to 'separate out' the air group as some sort of be-all/end-all stand-alone capability, I say that I never really understood the point of deconstructed rhubarb crumble, either.
However, the carrier has other functions too. To anyone who insists on trying to 'separate out' the air group as some sort of be-all/end-all stand-alone capability, I say that I never really understood the point of deconstructed rhubarb crumble, either.
I suspect the irony of this statement escapes you.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,582
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
Other functions - not that I give a damn because.... not my country but - to me - interesting PDF from 10 Aug 2016 (one year ago so it may be out of date - crabs squib again).
Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers Air Maritime Integration Captain Nick Walker Royal Navy Naval Staff – Policy Carrier Strike and Aviation 10 Aug 2016
Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers Air Maritime Integration Captain Nick Walker Royal Navy Naval Staff – Policy Carrier Strike and Aviation 10 Aug 2016
"...Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) Protecting our nation’s interests
An integrated and sustainable joint capability, interoperable with NATO, that enables the projection of UK Carrier Strike and Littoral Manoeuvre power as well as delivering humanitarian assistance and defence diplomacy, enabling joint effect across the maritime, land and air environments at a time and place of political choosing. (CEPP CONEMP, Single Statement of User Need)..." http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...810_Walker.pdf (1.9Mb)
An integrated and sustainable joint capability, interoperable with NATO, that enables the projection of UK Carrier Strike and Littoral Manoeuvre power as well as delivering humanitarian assistance and defence diplomacy, enabling joint effect across the maritime, land and air environments at a time and place of political choosing. (CEPP CONEMP, Single Statement of User Need)..." http://www.williamsfoundation.org.au...810_Walker.pdf (1.9Mb)
"When a sailor learns to fly, he remains a sailor, and the air for him is merely the roof of the sea." Sir Walter Raleigh, ‘War in the Air’ 1922.
Protecting our nation’s interests The subliminal power of definitions
Maritime Power (AJP 3.1)
Military, political and economic power exerted through the use of the sea, and exercised by sea, air and land resource.
Air Power (AJP 3.3)
The ability to use air capabilities to influence the behaviour of actors and the course of events."
Maritime Power (AJP 3.1)
Military, political and economic power exerted through the use of the sea, and exercised by sea, air and land resource.
Air Power (AJP 3.3)
The ability to use air capabilities to influence the behaviour of actors and the course of events."
Infuriating, isn't it?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And imagine how many more platforms for all the above[and the manpower to man them] if there weren't two massively useless lumps floating about doing SFA
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBH I expect they will spend almost all their time doing all the things that FODPlod has said.........
My concern is (and always has been) not that they are useless but that under current (and foreseeable) financing levels they will draw away funds and personnel from the rest of the Navy to our overall detriment
My concern is (and always has been) not that they are useless but that under current (and foreseeable) financing levels they will draw away funds and personnel from the rest of the Navy to our overall detriment
"When a sailor learns to fly, he remains a sailor, and the air for him is merely the roof of the sea." Sir Walter Raleigh, ‘War in the Air’ 1922.
I love the idea that someone thinks all the Naval Aviators have spent long years at sea before they start their pilot/observer training and that they therefore bring something other than a few months at Dartmouth to the Sea Power party
Most of the ones I ever flew with did everything they could to get a shore appointment to avoid going to sea.
Thread Starter
And imagine how many more platforms for all the above[and the manpower to man them] if there weren't two massively useless lumps floating about doing SFA
Does the employment of the CVS throughout the 90s/early 00s count as SFA?
For a large part of the 1990s, the main UK military effort was in Bosnia. A carrier was deployed continuously in the Adriatic for those years, with both Sea Harriers and Sea Kings doing all sorts of stuff, including enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia, doing reece, and ground attack - the Sea Harrier participated in NATO air attacks against the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. On here, many have been dismissive of the small number of Sea Jets embarked, but turn a blind eye to the fact that the RAF contributions ashore had similar numbers of aircraft, but without the mobility or swing role. The embarked ASW and AEW Sea Kings also contributed to operations. Remember, Yugoslavia did have an air force and a navy, and NATO naval units were conducting Maritime Interdiction Operations to prevent arms smuggling, so keeping a handle on the surface picture was important.
In the late 90s carriers took part in various other activities, including helping police the no fly zone over Southern Iraq and at least a couple of stand offs with Saddam Hussein. I think that RAF Harrier GR7s were embarked for the first time during one of these crises, hence the inclusion of the Joint Force Harrier concept in the 1998 SDR. After Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, HMS Invincible was sent to the Arabian Gulf as (so the media said) there was a missile threat to the RAF base in Kuwait and the UK wanted another option. On her way back to the UK, Invincible got diverted to the Adriatic to participate in the Kosovo operations.
In 2000, the UK intervention in Sierra Leone involved HMS Illustrious with both types of Harrier embarked, a fact that may not have registered with the UK commander ashore, Brigadier David Richards (later a Knight, a General, and CDS - and now a Peer). The political and psychological messages sent by deploying large warships close to land should also be remembered, as well as constant presence, large numbers of helicopters, command and control facilities, medical facilities, and others. I seem to remember that Illustrious made a high speed dash across the Atlantic, but had to wait for the slower Ocean to catch up.
In 2001, Illustrious once again deployed with both Harrier types embarked, for the SAIF SARREA II exercise in Oman. Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, she was retasked to act as a helicopter carrier (Ocean needed to return to the UK for maintenance) and disembarked her fixed wing aircraft (and grey Sea Kings?). No land based UK fast jets took part in the initial strikes against the Taliban either, although submarines did.
In 2003, Ark Royal acted as a LPH for the invasion of Iraq. The Iraqi air force was mostly dead and buried after over a decade of sanctions and a no fly zone, and Kuwaiti/Bahraini/Qatari airbases were used by the US/UK/Australians. Not that that stopped the US Navy from deploying FIVE carriers.
Since then, our main military involvement has been Iraq and Afghanistan. Apart from the lack of an opponent with an air force or navy, they both lack any length of coastline, Afghanistan being land locked, Iraq having only a tiny coastline - not that this prevents carrier based aircraft operating in both places.
In the last few years we have used Illustrious and Ocean in what might be regarded as carrier roles, such as using multiple helicopters to deliver aid in the wake of natural disaster in the Philippines in 2013, participating in a major NATO ASW exercise (with lots of embarked helicopters (in 2014), participating in a similar ASW exercise in 2016, and more recently commanding CTF 50 in the Middle East, the US task group charged with strike operations.
I am ignoring things that might considered LPH roles, such as BALTOPS year after year or amphibious deployments.
Regarding manpower - see the answer below to HH.
TBH I expect they will spend almost all their time doing all the things that FODPlod has said.........
My concern is (and always has been) not that they are useless but that under current (and foreseeable) financing levels they will draw away funds and personnel from the rest of the Navy to our overall detriment
My concern is (and always has been) not that they are useless but that under current (and foreseeable) financing levels they will draw away funds and personnel from the rest of the Navy to our overall detriment