Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 24th Aug 2017, 13:48
  #4421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,880
Let's just hope that the RN is better at steering its ships and keeping them from being rammed than the USN
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2017, 14:07
  #4422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 602
[I]So, what is the F-35B like to fly? Thanks to the pioneering work of UK's DERA (now DSTL/QinetiQ) VAAC Harrier testbeds and test pilots like Justin Paines and John Farley in developing advanced FBW software for VTOL aircraft it is extremely simple.
The tps did a fabulous job, and the VAAC Harrier was worked hard, but I do find it interesting that in the UK we tend not to publicly celebrate the work of the engineers and scientists without whom there'd be nothing for anyone to fly and whose concepts make all this possible.

Initials like Gd'M, GP, KG, YP, FS and more come to mind.
BossEyed is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2017, 23:23
  #4423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hants
Posts: 67
The tps did a fabulous job, and the VAAC Harrier was worked hard, but I do find it interesting that in the UK we tend not to publicly celebrate the work of the engineers and scientists without whom there'd be nothing for anyone to fly and whose concepts make all this possible.

Initials like Gd'M, GP, KG, YP, FS and more come to mind.
Well there was a Gold one of these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...Gold_Medalists in 2009 which, as you can see, even makes it into Wikipedia so was a bit public.
NoHoverstop is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2017, 11:25
  #4424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
http://www.janes.com/images/assets/2..._source=Eloqua

Good Article on the Jane's 360 website about the QE's replacing "Ocean"
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2017, 17:45
  #4425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,880
Until they mention embarking the Wildcat as part of its helicopter force - it has poor range, poor lift capability and no weapons save a .50 Browning - not sure what it will do as part of the LitM force.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2017, 20:34
  #4426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,260
With the side lift down a Somali pirate in a speed boat can sink a carrier with a hand held missile. Lots of fuel etc.
4Greens is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 04:14
  #4427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Originally Posted by 4greens View Post
with the side lift down a somali pirate in a speed boat can sink a carrier with a hand held missile. Lots of fuel etc.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
MSOCS is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 08:53
  #4428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by BossEyed View Post
The tps did a fabulous job, and the VAAC Harrier was worked hard, but I do find it interesting that in the UK we tend not to publicly celebrate the work of the engineers and scientists without whom there'd be nothing for anyone to fly and whose concepts make all this possible
Can you tell me what contribution American engineer Paul Bevilaqua made to the F-35B design? Never heard of the guy, right?

https://youtu.be/w_Iw3Z6Dh8g
riff_raff is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2017, 15:21
  #4429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by riff_raff View Post
Can you tell me what contribution American engineer Paul Bevilaqua made to the F-35B design? Never heard of the guy, right?

https://youtu.be/w_Iw3Z6Dh8g

... well yes I have and see there's a youtube video about him so he's got quite a lot of recognition I would think.
t43562 is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 03:14
  #4430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 73
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by SpazSinbad View Post
For the delectation of 'WEBF' (& any interested others). The attached PDF is written by the chap responsible for setting up the CCA onboard MELBOURNE in the A4G/S2 era. I'll have to confirm this thought: the original CCA was the Venom radar being replaced by the GCA radar (also new in late 1960s I believe) at NAS Nowra. Anyhoo one does not get better first person stories than this one. Perhaps some detail is not correct such as 'I was told the A4G hook to ramp clearance was six feet' whereas the NATOPS minimum for A-4s was 6.5 feet. The detail about the first A-4B USN deck lander says it all - I had only heard his exclamation after his first and only cat shot.
Again for 'WEBF' and other interested partlies how the WILF document used:

https://www.faaaa.asn.au/7307-2/
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 06:51
  #4431 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
The point is that everything except Carrier Strike could be handled by cheaper vessels and we could order more of them - say a couple more T45's, 4 more T26's and replacements for Ocean etc
I may have missed something in the posts above but here goes:

I suspect that the actual acquisition decision is much simpler. If the RN orders a Carrier, they will automatically require a protection/support group, either comprised of current or new vessels which are unlikely to be cut. If they had ordered cheaper vessels, in the recent financial climate, they would never have got a carrier, and what vessels they have got could be cut and/or scrapped whether capable or not.

Simples? Moi? Quite possibly, I shall return to the bat cave now.

Imagegear

Last edited by ImageGear; 27th Aug 2017 at 15:02.
 
Old 27th Aug 2017, 07:12
  #4432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
The problem Image is exactly that - the Carrier group will be formed of CURRENT vessels - which will be diverted from whatever taks they are currently doing .

The idea that the Govt will order MORE vessels to make up for the diversion is a fantasy I'm afraid - we've already seen the T26's go from 13 to 8 in 3 years

Time wil tell if this was a good idea or a mistake.....................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 08:04
  #4433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Or you change the RNs role :-) The RN is changing, less single ship deployments, to create support for a task group deployment. This has been happening for a few years. From only a few years ago where we always had 4 ff/dd s on deployment to only one now. T45 issues being resolved. T23 life extension work at some pace. Anyone would think there was a plan ;-)
PeterGee is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 14:33
  #4434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
T45 issues being resolved

Indeed.

When you spend 6.2 billion and have 1 seaworthy it is offset by spending 6.2 billion on two carriers without any aircraft.

Way to go.

PS above from Private Eye btw.
glad rag is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 15:11
  #4435 (permalink)  
ImageGear
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Since we are talking devils advocate here I will propose that the next great defence review will announce that since we can now generate aircraft from a more flexible maritime platform, we shall require a smaller number of RAF bases/squadrons especially closer to Western Europe.

Watch this space

Imagegear
 
Old 27th Aug 2017, 20:26
  #4436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 795
Originally Posted by ImageGear View Post
Since we are talking devils advocate here I will propose that the next great defence review will announce that since we can now generate aircraft from a more flexible maritime platform, we shall require a smaller number of RAF bases/squadrons especially closer to Western Europe.

Watch this space

Imagegear
Let's hope so - some of the biggest ever seen tail-wagging-the-dog has to go.
gijoe is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2017, 23:20
  #4437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by glad rag View Post
T45 issues being resolved

Indeed.

When you spend 6.2 billion and have 1 seaworthy it is offset by spending 6.2 billion on two carriers without any aircraft.

Way to go.

PS above from Private Eye btw.

Guess that makes it true then :-) Duncan is deployed, Diamond about to deploy for 9 months, with major engineering fixes, Dragon in short term maintenance, Defender coming out of refit, Dauntless in the big fix refit. Not enough people to staff Daring, Now there IS an issue. Rest is cack and as I say, the RN is regrouping for its new role.
PeterGee is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 00:42
  #4438 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,697
Originally Posted by 4Greens View Post
With the side lift down a Somali pirate in a speed boat can sink a carrier with a hand held missile. Lots of fuel etc.
Best not to go near the Somali coast with the lift down then? But remember a hand held missile means RPG or similar - short range and unstabilised. The ship has a number of stabilised weapons to deal with this sort of threat, and can manoeuvre aggressively.

I also suspect that the designers considered things like fire.

SpazSinbad

Thanks for more interesting stuff. Just out of interest, what did you do after you stopped flying and left the Navy? Maybe you should have become a Maths teacher?

HH

The Navy's real problem is lack of people, which is largely due to the way the axe was swung wildly in October 2010 without much thought after the intervention of Dopey Dave. Likewise, in 2015 he stopped both the RN and RAF getting thousands of extra people.

The Type 45 has had problems that have been greatly exaggerated, and are being resolved. However you need an awful lot of provide to same level of defence against air threats as a fighter (and cannot possibly match the ability to visually ID or intercept at range), and interestingly F-35B can be used to cue a ship's weapons.

As for frigates - again we being hurt by manpower shortages, and I wonder if this is one of the reasons why there seems to be a drive to fit the not yet tested (I am unaware of any test firings, and MOD does not have a 100% record when it comes to integration) Sea Ceptor aboard ships in upkeep (therefore keeping them in upkeep) in place of the tried and tested Sea Wolf. Sea Wolf armed ships will continue to be sent possibly into harm's way for years, such as when there was a real threat of anti ship missiles being used against shipping off the coast of Yemen a few months ago. Existing systems still need supporting.....

However - their main role is Anti Submarine Warfare. The eight T26s are one for one replacements for the T23s fitted with 2087 towed array sonar and Merlin, the others will be replaced by Type 31.

On the subject of ASW, the primary ASW assets of the surface fleet are Merlin HM2 with dipping sonar and frigate borne towed array sonar. Consider a task group with a carrier, a couple of Type 23s (with Merlin and sonar 2087), and somewhere an SSN: I am leaving Maritime Patrol Aircraft out for the moment.

SSN scouts ahead of a task group, Merlins fly long range sorties from the carriers (and also from the T23s), and T23s use their quiet propulsion and towed array sonar for long range detection.

Off the top of my head a Merlin has a cruising speed of 150 knots and an endurance of five hours, so can maintain station quite some distance from the high value unit (carrier, amphibious ships, important RFA, STUFT or Chartered vessels), but doing this means you need quite a few of them - hence the carrier. Remember the previous carrier design (Invincible class AKA CVS) was originally designed to carry about ten ASW Sea Kings, which led to a class of ship that could be adapted to carry Sea Harriers.

Additionally non 2087 fitted Type 23s have hull mounted sonar (not sure about Type 45), and carry Wildcats which can carry ASW weapons (as does the T45). Most RFAs will also carry either Merlin or Wildcat.

Until the 1970s, the US Navy operated attack carriers (CVA - lots of jets) and ASW carriers (CVS - ASW aircraft and a handful of jets for defence), until they realised it was better to integrate the two types.

Do we want a Navy built for war or one intended for peacetime tasks? Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum!

glad rag

Oh dear. Only one Type 45 seaworthy? I wonder does that include HMS Duncan (on NATO tasking). HMS Defender - recently returned from the Middle East, HMS Daring - also returned from deployment not so long ago, or HMS Diamond - deploying later this year?

Or maybe someone with an axe to grind saw only one is deployed right now, and simply jumped to a conclusion?

As for carriers without aircraft, maybe some people have not heard of the F-35B? Perhaps they might like to hear of all the integration work being undertaken, or that HMS Queen Elizabeth will have them embarked next year?

PeterGee

Just seen your reply. I wonder if certain parts of the media could do with employing someone for basic fact checking?
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 00:59
  #4439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 300
WEBF - the T45 is fitted with the Ultra Electronics MFS-7000 bow-mounted medium-frequency sonar. Not the highest-end capability but a lot better than was originally planned, which was nothing.
Frostchamber is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2017, 01:57
  #4440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,631
Originally Posted by PeterGee View Post
Guess that makes it true then :-) Duncan is deployed, Diamond about to deploy for 9 months, with major engineering fixes, Dragon in short term maintenance, Defender coming out of refit, Dauntless in the big fix refit. Not enough people to staff Daring, Now there IS an issue. Rest is cack and as I say, the RN is regrouping for its new role.
Point conveniently avoided.
glad rag is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.