Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[SpazSinbad]

MORE CVF testing & other INFO than one can 'stick a poke at' at URL. Riddle me this: Why arenot the CVFs having JPALS installed (or they will once it is ready for the USN?)?

Road to Carrier Enabled Power Projection 25 Aug 2017 Gabriele

"... QE will embark 2 instrumented F-35Bs and 4 pilots for 8 weeks of tests and evaluation. Highlight of the trials will be the experimentation of the Short Rolling Vertical Landing technique..." http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...rojection.html

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.*****...rojection.html = TINY URL: http://tinyurl.com/yamfapch

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blog [join] spot.com.au/2017/08/road-to-carrier-enabled-power-projection.html

[SpazSinbad]

Some food for those wondering thoughtfully why youse Brits have carriers:

British Aircraft Carriers Return Aug 2017 Norman Friedman

"...What the carriers and amphibious ships mean for the United Kingdom is that it can—when needed—operate independently. British national interests may demand that independence. Britain’s view of what matters abroad at times will differ from that of its allies. The ability to operate independently may generate desired support from other countries, including the United States. Without it, Britain’s pursuit of national interests overseas is limited and will depend on the permission and assistance of others.

Most of the world’s population lives and works not far from the ocean, on which most global commerce moves. The U.S. Navy’s post-Cold War littoral strategy was based on those facts and is still valid today. Great Britain let its navy—especially its power projection capability—atrophy after the Cold War. The addition of the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales—armed with F-35B fighters—marks an important milestone in the return of the Royal Navy and its ability to project British national resolve."
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proce...arriers-return

[Heathrow Harry]

"Most of the world’s population lives and works not far from the ocean"

Let's see - so that's India, Indonesia, China, Brazil & the USA,,, with Nigeria coming up fast...........

which one are we going to fight first???

[ORAC]

.........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......

So,the TF is there to defend the carrier, and the carrier is there to carry the assets to defend the TF.

Technically this is known as a self-licking lollipop......

[idle bystander]

"Most of the world’s population lives and works not far from the ocean"
Let's see - so that's India, Indonesia, China, Brazil & the USA,,, with Nigeria coming up fast...........

which one are we going to fight first???

Actually something like 90% of the world's population lives within 100 miles of a coast line. I can't quote the reference, and it's certainly not an accurate figure, but the proportion is very surprisingly large.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by ORAC

So,the TF is there to defend the carrier, and the carrier is there to carry the assets to defend the TF.

Technically this is known as a self-licking lollipop......

Aside from the minor point that the carrier can do significantly more than defend the TF (particularly if the carrier is large enough to carry a decent number and mix of aircraft), it is the TF itself that delivers effect, whether that be carrier strike, amphibious threat, safe delivery of shipping, blockade, etc etc.


One might similarly (and equally wrongly) argue that an airbase which requires rock-apes, radar and air defence assets among other things, is an S-L-L.

[ORAC]

If they were deploying with a large and comprehensive air wing I might agree with you. However, since for the foreseeable future the largest probable air wing will include one Sqn of 12 x F-35B I do not.

A naval focussed article, looking at recent RN carrier history in the Falklands war, estimates the majority of sorties were dedicated to AD CAPs, looking at the figures gives a realistic estimate for the QE as requiring at 8 aircraft. Leaving an offensive capability of a 4 ship - assuming full serviceability. And of course a radius of action meaning operating no more than about 240nm off shore......

Would Britain Really be Back as a Traditional Carrier Power?

[Not_a_boffin]

Hmm. War fought largely in oppos back yard, without AEW or similar against a real and sustained air threat, in a navy configured at the time for defensive NorthLant sea control missions, requires high proportion of AD sorties. Who'd have thought it....


It's highly likely that the number deployed will be determined by the threat / operation. Unless of course someone deliberately chooses to limit the number deployable.


Given the latest combat radius of the B is apparently 505nm (from Engines' figures on the stitch up thread), where's your 240 from?

[ORAC]

The usual definition of littoral operations includes from the shore to 200 miles inland, where 70% of the worlds populations live. Unless you plan to only bomb the beach and harbours, which doesn't require aircraft, I am using that puts a carrier about 200nm offshore.

[Not_a_boffin]

Or more accurately, means the carrier can be stationed anywhere between (say) 200 and 450 nm offshore, depending on the days ATO and the overall campaign plan. A distance that it can change in half a day or thereabouts. All without asking permission from anyone.

[SpazSinbad]

I'll guess 'landing light system' is the BEDFORD ARRAY but WTF - journos baffled agin.

"...Martin Douglass, engineering director of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) industrial consortium, which is building the two new 65,000-tonne carriers for the RN, told Jane’s on 31 August that they are currently “on track” to float Prince of Wales out of its dry dock next summer and begin sea trials in mid-2019.

He said the ACA was already applying lessons from the first-of-class build process and sea trials to the second carrier. This includes making improvements to the process of preparing its heat-resistant flight deck coverings and installing an improved F-35 landing light systems earlier in the build process, he said." Royal Navy considers two carriers essential for F-35 trials | Jane's 360

[SARF]

What island nation could possibly want two asessts that can deploy up to 50 latest generation fighter bombers any where on the planet .. I mean why bother. Let's just use the sas to do everything .. no problem.

[Heathrow Harry]

"any where on the planet"

I think you mean within 200 miles of an undefended coastline........ not going to threaten Moscow for a start................ or Berlin

[Engines]

Perhaps I could add something here...

'anywhere on the planet' - well, it's true a carrier can't get to the centre of large land masses. But their ability to get to some bits of land has been useful in the past. Just can't think of any right now...

Oh, yes - those places in the Pacific in WW2

Oh, and Korea when there weren't any land bases

Oh, and Suez

And the Falklands....

Sierra Leone, Beira, Indonesia, etc., etc.

Honestly, folks, no-one is suggesting that carrier borne aviation can do everything. I've not heard anyone suggest naval aviation as a replacement for all land based aviation. But, honestly, there does seem to be a little traffic going the other way. Could we not agree that having two large carriers is a really, really, really significant and flexible capability and then work out how best to use them to the max?

Best regards as ever to all those working out how to use them to the max,

Engines

[ORAC]

[SASless]

Honestly, folks, no-one is suggesting that carrier borne aviation can do everything. I've not heard anyone suggest naval aviation as a replacement for all land based aviation. But, honestly, there does seem to be a little traffic going the other way. Could we not agree that having two large carriers is a really, really, really significant and flexible capability and then work out how best to use them to the max?

Translated into common speak......"Now that we have two of these really really expensive things with some really really really really expensive flying things setting on the roof top.....let's figure out what to do with them all."

Cart....Horse?

I should have thought merely keeping up appearances would have been far better thought out than this.

As to the utility of two Task Groups....assuming both of the bird farms can ever set sail at the same time....and the RN provide enough escorts to guard the Carrier....while it guards the escorts....and they both launch max efforts at Mud Moving....that would be the equivalent of one Land based Squadron approximately.

Memory serves me that stashing all the Eggs into the one basket concept proved a problem in the Falklands when the Atlantic Conveyor got whacked.....what is much different today in that regard?

What amount of success would the Oppo's have to achieve to render your Bird Farm's) Combat In-effective?

If you assign an Attack Sub....or two to each Task Group in addition to some of your Frigates and Destroyers....what opposition force would be required to penetrate those assets and get to the Carrier?

Or....are we thinking one sided scuffles as the reason to be for the new Carrier Task Forces?

[Old RN]

The best (?) example of the use of land based a/c vs. carriers was after UDI in Rhodesia in late 1965. As any good navy the RN proposed a plan (which it started to implement) to move the East of Suez based carrier towards Beira while offloading all aircrew with Rhodesia or South African conections. The plan was to get a carrier and comando force off Beira, to estsblish air superiority over eastern Rhodesia, land the comando by helo on a small airfield, start flying in troops. With a firm base in Rhodesia then take control of Salisbury and end UDI in weeks. Given the very limited state of the Rhodesian military at this point it was very credible.

BUT......

The British Labour government was committed to axing the carriers because "there was no need for them", so the RAF was told to do what they could without carriers. They flew some Javelins into a friendly country, but without much backup support, and achieved nothing except to show how ineffective they were!

[Shackman]

And the maritime Shackletons had to be based at Majunga doing endless patrols of the Beira straights to find tankers for the RN to go and investigate.

[George K Lee]

I don't think anyone is arguing that two carriers aren't a useful asset. Or that carrier air can operate where land-based can't.

However, we have to recognize that there are reasons why the land-based branch might be looking askance at the wonders of CV.

The carrier plan has, for the time being, been severely cut back in terms of the number of sustained, embarked airplanes.

However, it continues to dominate the TacAir budget, to the point where the Tornado capability is being "replaced" by eked-out Typhoon AD squadrons and 48 F-35s which will mostly support naval operations. If MSOCS is to be believed, too, FJ people are going to be told that they can go to sea or take a walk.

So you do start to ask "Carriers are cool, but what else could we have bought for the money?"

[Heathrow Harry]

Old RN - there was never a real plan to invade Rhodesia - the Tories were dead set against it and most of the country didn't support the idea. Harold Wilson was far too downy a bird to get involved in a pointless war far far away that wasn't going to benifit the UK - remember his views on helping the Yanks in Vietnam.

Plus, IIRC, papers such as the Torygraph and the Excess were running stories "that British servicement would refuse to fight" Smith's mob.

The Admirals, as ever, were trying to hang on to as many assets as possible especially in warm waters - Wilson used the whole RAF/RN operation as a low cost, low risk cover so he could face the UN and the Commonwealth and show he was "doing something"