Future Carrier (Including Costs)
The problem with buying lots of additional T45/T26/T31 and SSN is that without carriers - or significant DCA presence provided by someone else - they are limited in what they can do and where they can go, where there is a credible air threat.
FF/DD hull numbers are not an end in themselves, in the same way that FJ sqns are not an end in themselves without all the other supporting elements.
FF/DD hull numbers are not an end in themselves, in the same way that FJ sqns are not an end in themselves without all the other supporting elements.
NAB
I get that. But with the numbers we have now there isn't much flex and we may need to be in more than 1 location.
I suppose the crux is what would be more useful, extra hulls or the CBG that leaves not much else to do anything else.
Or alternatively the government could choose to fund all 3 services to do what is asked of them correctly.
I get that. But with the numbers we have now there isn't much flex and we may need to be in more than 1 location.
I suppose the crux is what would be more useful, extra hulls or the CBG that leaves not much else to do anything else.
Or alternatively the government could choose to fund all 3 services to do what is asked of them correctly.
It's basically a binary choice. You either have a home defence force - FJ DCA, AEW, SH, shore ASM batteries, MPA, SSK, MCM, OPV and a rump army. Or you provide useable effect at a strategic level and in doing so, do some of the heavy lifting for your NATO allies. The "in-between" doesn't add that much for all the extra cost.
Lots of NATO countries can supply FJ, DD/FF and infantry - of varying quality, but they're not exactly scarce, even if their RoE can be constraining.
No-one else - at present - can provide the top-end naval assets in Europe, apart from the US and France (when CdG is available). Which is one reason why they're very keen for some assistance and why they've been very generous in supporting regeneration of carrier strike.
Lots of NATO countries can supply FJ, DD/FF and infantry - of varying quality, but they're not exactly scarce, even if their RoE can be constraining.
No-one else - at present - can provide the top-end naval assets in Europe, apart from the US and France (when CdG is available). Which is one reason why they're very keen for some assistance and why they've been very generous in supporting regeneration of carrier strike.
A lot depends on whether you want a navy that has the capability to deliver military effect or want to restrict yourself to assets that can essentially turn up and defend themselves. The whole rationale of the T45s for example is to escort the carriers. With escorts, the clue is in the name. NAB has called it exactly right IMHO.
NAB - Thanks for bringing your usual level-headedness to the party. Most informative.
Any case comprising little more than opinionated ignorance (even when written in capital letters) is no match for your logic and factual evidence.
Any case comprising little more than opinionated ignorance (even when written in capital letters) is no match for your logic and factual evidence.
Thread Starter
OAP/HH
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.
What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?
Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?
I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.
Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.
My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.
So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.
My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances without stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?
As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 90s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.
As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.
What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?
Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?
I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.
Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.
My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.
So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.
My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances without stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?
As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 90s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.
As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 21st Nov 2017 at 13:48.
OAP/HH
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.
What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?
Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?
I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.
Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.
My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.
So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.
My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances with stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?
As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 80s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.
As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
As a (part time) Sailor, I am aware that the Royal Navy exists to fight wars, therefore a mobile platform for operating fixed wing and rotary ring aircraft seems very relevant. I am also aware that ships operating in a task group with a carrier both support and are supported by the carrier, and the whole force needs to be able to integrate. I am also aware that when not fighting wars, deterrence and defence diplomacy/engagement are major parts of the reason for having a navy. A carrier (with F-35B and Merlins (both ASW and AEW) sounds ideal for both.
What more relevant capabilities did you have in mind?
Apart from the power projection/strike thing, I think of a task group facing air, submarine, and surface threats - possibly projecting power, putting amphibious forces ashore, clearing mines, or protecting important seaborne logistics. What could be more useful than a carrier with nine (or more) ASW helicopters, fixed wing aircraft than can identify and engage air threats at range and provide targeting information to ships and their weapons, and aircraft to extend the task group's radar horizon?
I often deal with people who could be described as ASW Subject Matter Experts - and they know from experience that a task group needs multiple helicopters for effective ASW (as well as frigates/destroyers with hull mounted sonar, and frigates with towed arrays). Incidentally, they used to think nine was the number of Sea Kings needed for 24/7 dipping.
Similarly, it is very difficult for land based aircraft to defend a task group at any range from a friendly airfield, and carrier based fighters allow to intercept unknown aircraft and engage if necessary at ranges far beyond the missile range of even the most advanced anti air missile. Even ignoring the range, ships cannot visually ID aircraft, protect helicopters from hostile aircraft, or provide the same level of attrition to incoming raids.
My background (academic/work) is in Electronics/Communications Engineering - so I understand the importance of defence in depth, dealing with threats at as long a range as possible, and the limits on shipborne radars and weapons due to mast height and so on. Also in the old days aircraft were unable to cue ship based weapons, something F-35B has proved it can do.
So yes I am talking from both Engineering and Dark Blue perspectives. Additionally my RNR (Communications) role is related to something that requires integration within a task group and not just within a single ship, and is involved in aviation. With a large stable platform, the carrier will enable improved access to Satellite Communications, and with USMC elements embarked certain USN systems, which in time the UK might have access to, with a large increase in bandwidth. As a flagship, she will be able to act as a C4ISTAR (sometimes now called C5ISTAR) for a task group. She was also provide a Role 2 medical facility and a few other things.
My previous RNR role involved maritime force protection - you might have noticed how terrorists have found it very difficult to operate in the maritime environment? The moon howling on here amuses but also exasperates me - 'Somalians' in motor boats firing anti ship missiles, nuclear weapons being carried by canoe, unarmed ships near hostile coastlines being hit by missiles - really? You do know a carrier will not go near a hostile coastline - yes? You also know they task groups can transit long distances with stopping at ports? You also know they are escorted by fully armed frigates/destroyers, and have their own defences against things like the small boat threat?
As a child of the 80s/90s, I was aware of the role played by carriers in the Falklands, during the Cold War, in the Gulf War in 1991, then in both the Adriatic and the Gulf throughout the 80s and past the year 2000. After a land centric 10-15 years I think it is a fair bet the next crisis will not be some landlocked or nearly landlocked, in any case carriers supplied a great number of sorties in support of coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria too.
As a supporter of manufacturing industry and exporting, I am aware that some carrier related technologies such as aircraft lifts and landing aids have been exported, and both of these things are not entirely unrelated to civil products. To give you another example, the QEC is powered by Rolls Royce engines that are derived from civil aerospace engines, and similar to a version used for power applications. They also have all sorts of other things that are related to both naval and commercial marine sectors, and things similar to industrial systems - I am thinking of things like the automated weapon handling system. What better showcase for UK industry?
Back to the story....the money should be spent on Defence capabilities we actually need!
OAP
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Around and about.
Age: 66
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAP
You really are an arrogant so and so..
I don't usually enter into the military forum, because like you I am just a mere tax payer..
I'm pleased that you're here to let everyone know what defence capabilities we actually need...
Simmbob
You really are an arrogant so and so..
I don't usually enter into the military forum, because like you I am just a mere tax payer..
I'm pleased that you're here to let everyone know what defence capabilities we actually need...
Simmbob
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB - We an easily get wrapped around the axle when we start talking about design and build costs for carriers. That is (relatively) the inexpensive bit. Even in the US it is possible to show that building Fords is "affordable" in terms of new-ship money per year, because of the carriers' long life.
But F-35Bs are not cheap to acquire or operate, and nor is Crowsnest - and so far it appears that 48 F-35s are all that can be afforded for a long time to come.
But F-35Bs are not cheap to acquire or operate, and nor is Crowsnest - and so far it appears that 48 F-35s are all that can be afforded for a long time to come.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...down-23trfhw5j
One of Britain’s most advanced warships has aborted a mission to the Gulf and is heading home after breaking down, The Times can reveal.
HMS Diamond, a £1 billion Type 45 destroyer, had problems with a propeller that could not be fixed at sea despite the efforts of sailors on board. It is the latest debacle to beset the Royal Navy’s fleet of six destroyers, built by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, which started entering service eight years ago. The other five warships are in Portsmouth because of routine maintenance, a shortage of sailors and problems with the engine, which struggles in warm water.
There is not thought to be any other ship, including among a fleet of 13 Type 23 frigates, that is ready to sail to replace HMS Diamond, which had been two months into a nine-month deployment. This means that Britain will be unable to perform a long-running commitment to provide reassurance to allies in the Gulf region. A navy website reported that HMS Diamond had been due to “be working with international and Nato allies to protect some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, keeping them free from criminal activities”.
It is rare for the navy to fail to fulfil one of its priority tasks and shows the strain that the service is under after decades of cuts to the size of the fleet and crews. “There is no question that this is a blow,” a defence source said. The prospect of all six Type 45s tied up in Portsmouth will be an uncomfortable one for Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary......
Admiral Sir Philip Jones, head of the navy, is under pressure to demonstrate that the Type 45s work despite long-running problems with the engine in warm water. The latest failure will be of particular embarrassment because a television crew is on board. At first a temporary fix was attempted until it was decided that the complex nature of the equipment meant that the only solution was to return to Portsmouth.
It is thought that the warship will dock within ten days. A source said that while the failed task was a disappointment, at least the crew would have an unexpected Christmas with their families........
One of Britain’s most advanced warships has aborted a mission to the Gulf and is heading home after breaking down, The Times can reveal.
HMS Diamond, a £1 billion Type 45 destroyer, had problems with a propeller that could not be fixed at sea despite the efforts of sailors on board. It is the latest debacle to beset the Royal Navy’s fleet of six destroyers, built by BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, which started entering service eight years ago. The other five warships are in Portsmouth because of routine maintenance, a shortage of sailors and problems with the engine, which struggles in warm water.
There is not thought to be any other ship, including among a fleet of 13 Type 23 frigates, that is ready to sail to replace HMS Diamond, which had been two months into a nine-month deployment. This means that Britain will be unable to perform a long-running commitment to provide reassurance to allies in the Gulf region. A navy website reported that HMS Diamond had been due to “be working with international and Nato allies to protect some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes, keeping them free from criminal activities”.
It is rare for the navy to fail to fulfil one of its priority tasks and shows the strain that the service is under after decades of cuts to the size of the fleet and crews. “There is no question that this is a blow,” a defence source said. The prospect of all six Type 45s tied up in Portsmouth will be an uncomfortable one for Gavin Williamson, the new defence secretary......
Admiral Sir Philip Jones, head of the navy, is under pressure to demonstrate that the Type 45s work despite long-running problems with the engine in warm water. The latest failure will be of particular embarrassment because a television crew is on board. At first a temporary fix was attempted until it was decided that the complex nature of the equipment meant that the only solution was to return to Portsmouth.
It is thought that the warship will dock within ten days. A source said that while the failed task was a disappointment, at least the crew would have an unexpected Christmas with their families........
Pity it turned out to be a military tragedy when I tried.
OAP
Let's just hope they don't let the Navy fly their Wildcats from the new boats - strange that trying to get airborne in accessory drive leads to a broken aircraft lashed to the deck................
Thread Starter
Also if people post things to do with the capabilities provided by carrier aircraft, you immediately dismiss it as irrelevant. If anyone points out we have been doing carrier-like role in recent years, including as part of NATO and supporting coalition operations in the Middle East, you dismiss it as irrelevant. If anyone points out a carrier would have been useful in the last few years, you dismiss as irrelevant. If anyone refers to Geopolitical events, you dismiss it as irrelevant.
You ask me to stop telling you about things you know about - are you saying you know a carrier is essential to fighting wars at sea or from it?
What would you say to this post over on ARRSE?
Well, one reason we're not even more short on ships is because of the carriers: there was a proposal in the 2010 SDSR that not only should the RN lose the four Type 22 Batch 3 frigates that were scrapped early to save cash, but that the five "general purpose" Type 23s should also be sold or scrapped. The need to maintain escort numbers at the bare minimum (well, actually the bare minimum reduced by the Treasury saying 'the Navy will just have to work a bit harder' and the PM saying "I'm bored with all this, just cut here, here and here") to form a workable Carrier Task Group, was what deflected that: without the carriers, we could easily be down to fourteen DD/FF today.
Think we'd be doing better or worse, as a result?
Anyway: Whilst not a carrier, HMS Ocean could be fairly described as carrier like. A few months ago she was diverted from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean at short notice, then she returned to the Mediterranean for the NATO SNMG2 flagship role.
More recently, she has been the other side of the Mediterranean, taking part in a NATO exercise.
Two Jungly Merlin HC3 and two Wildcat AH1 from 847 NAS does not seem a particularly large airgroup, given she can carry far more than that.