Future Carrier (Including Costs)
USS Gerald R Ford - newest CVN:
2 x RIM-162 launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles.
2 x RIM-116 for Rolling Airframe Missiles.
3 x Phalanx CIWS.
4 x M2 .50 cal guns.
2 x RIM-162 launchers for Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles.
4 x M2 .50 cal guns.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JEngO, you may unwittingly have hit the nail on the head..
It's a complex subject, with many variables, but a UTH beam rider has a number of advantages, least of all burn through and HOGE; ah well, dream of Sea Flash.. along with Sea Sparrow, a relatively cheap as chips alternative =more bangs per pound sterling, post brexit..now about that missing angled flight deck etc..
It's a complex subject, with many variables, but a UTH beam rider has a number of advantages, least of all burn through and HOGE; ah well, dream of Sea Flash.. along with Sea Sparrow, a relatively cheap as chips alternative =more bangs per pound sterling, post brexit..now about that missing angled flight deck etc..
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barrels look pretty well clamped down so moa will be down to tracking and hysteresis in control systems...on that shot though no sign of the Phalanx money maker IR tracker..
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're welcome. Say hello to my little friend, Mr Plastic Cruise Missile.
PS I'm not sure I'd like to get into a Chinese warship's keep-out zone with a RHIB either.
PS I'm not sure I'd like to get into a Chinese warship's keep-out zone with a RHIB either.
Thread Starter
The idea of arming carriers with missiles (various) in lieu of aircraft was discussed a year ago over on ARRSE.
Aircraft Carriers, their use and how Britain should use them
Some of you might find it an interesting read. You will note those with practical experience were not convinced it was a good idea. There is also the usual selection of strange and ill informed comments.
Aircraft Carriers, their use and how Britain should use them
Some of you might find it an interesting read. You will note those with practical experience were not convinced it was a good idea. There is also the usual selection of strange and ill informed comments.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The carrier has the task of providing a sea-borne base for the embarked air, a rally point for all the other ships and a fall back location for diplomatic cocktail parties.
Rather more cheaply, and with a much greater range of alternates.
Airstrip One, as it was called by a bloke called Blair.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're welcome. Say hello to my little friend, Mr Plastic Cruise Missile.
PS I'm not sure I'd like to get into a Chinese warship's keep-out zone with a RHIB either.
PS I'm not sure I'd like to get into a Chinese warship's keep-out zone with a RHIB either.
The RN's optimism regarding air threats does indeed go a long way back. One presumes that the RN thinks that US / China / Russia / France have misjudged matters when providing a layered defence on their carriers including extensive EW and missiles... and unlike the RN they don't plan on operating in the littoral as a helicopter carrier!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well of course they'll be accompanied by a T45 - if there is one available
And that means anywhere warm is an unlikely destination for a while either...............
But Portsmouth will be pretty well defended against enemy air........
And that means anywhere warm is an unlikely destination for a while either...............
But Portsmouth will be pretty well defended against enemy air........
The rub is that the small number frigates and destroyers have always been needed for other tasks. When a carrier deploys then either these tasks are actually not needed or the carrier sails on its own.
As to how the RN will be able to muster a mixed fleet of frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc at the same time to support sequential carrier deployments remains a mystery. RN manning and RN ports are not exactly used to such events; launching vessels as and when is considerably less taxing than supporting a carrier cycle. The RN will need more money to make this capability actually work.
As to how the RN will be able to muster a mixed fleet of frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc at the same time to support sequential carrier deployments remains a mystery. RN manning and RN ports are not exactly used to such events; launching vessels as and when is considerably less taxing than supporting a carrier cycle. The RN will need more money to make this capability actually work.
Just a couple of points, which will no doubt be ignored as most of my comments are:
This thread has been running 11 years now. Given that these carriers are supposed to be build with an intended 50 year lifespan (working seals permitting), can we expect to still read comments here in 40 years time? If so I suggest the title of the thread is changed from "Future" Carrier.
The main gate decision to build these carriers was taken in November 2006. At the time the target In Service Dates for the ships were 2012 and 2015. I said at the time that these were wildly optimistic! I believe that HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 7th December 2017, with Initial Operating Capability in 2018, but an In Service date? Even if it's 2018, that's a 6 year delay on a 6 year target (yes, I know people will go at length about delays caused by decision of what aircraft type to use, conventional vs VSTOL, and subsequent redesigns - but it's still been 12 years instead of 6, and 6 was never going to be met in my opinion).
This thread has been running 11 years now. Given that these carriers are supposed to be build with an intended 50 year lifespan (working seals permitting), can we expect to still read comments here in 40 years time? If so I suggest the title of the thread is changed from "Future" Carrier.
The main gate decision to build these carriers was taken in November 2006. At the time the target In Service Dates for the ships were 2012 and 2015. I said at the time that these were wildly optimistic! I believe that HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 7th December 2017, with Initial Operating Capability in 2018, but an In Service date? Even if it's 2018, that's a 6 year delay on a 6 year target (yes, I know people will go at length about delays caused by decision of what aircraft type to use, conventional vs VSTOL, and subsequent redesigns - but it's still been 12 years instead of 6, and 6 was never going to be met in my opinion).
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as you have pointed out these super-weapons are protecting China’s new carriers so they must be good and the carriers completely invulnerable.
The rub is that the small number frigates and destroyers have always been needed for other tasks. When a carrier deploys then either these tasks are actually not needed or the carrier sails on its own.
As to how the RN will be able to muster a mixed fleet of frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc at the same time to support sequential carrier deployments remains a mystery. RN manning and RN ports are not exactly used to such events; launching vessels as and when is considerably less taxing than supporting a carrier cycle. The RN will need more money to make this capability actually work.
As to how the RN will be able to muster a mixed fleet of frigates, destroyers, RFAs etc at the same time to support sequential carrier deployments remains a mystery. RN manning and RN ports are not exactly used to such events; launching vessels as and when is considerably less taxing than supporting a carrier cycle. The RN will need more money to make this capability actually work.
Just a couple of points, which will no doubt be ignored as most of my comments are:
This thread has been running 11 years now. Given that these carriers are supposed to be build with an intended 50 year lifespan (working seals permitting), can we expect to still read comments here in 40 years time? If so I suggest the title of the thread is changed from "Future" Carrier.
The main gate decision to build these carriers was taken in November 2006. At the time the target In Service Dates for the ships were 2012 and 2015. I said at the time that these were wildly optimistic! I believe that HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 7th December 2017, with Initial Operating Capability in 2018, but an In Service date? Even if it's 2018, that's a 6 year delay on a 6 year target (yes, I know people will go at length about delays caused by decision of what aircraft type to use, conventional vs VSTOL, and subsequent redesigns - but it's still been 12 years instead of 6, and 6 was never going to be met in my opinion).
This thread has been running 11 years now. Given that these carriers are supposed to be build with an intended 50 year lifespan (working seals permitting), can we expect to still read comments here in 40 years time? If so I suggest the title of the thread is changed from "Future" Carrier.
The main gate decision to build these carriers was taken in November 2006. At the time the target In Service Dates for the ships were 2012 and 2015. I said at the time that these were wildly optimistic! I believe that HMS Queen Elizabeth was commissioned on 7th December 2017, with Initial Operating Capability in 2018, but an In Service date? Even if it's 2018, that's a 6 year delay on a 6 year target (yes, I know people will go at length about delays caused by decision of what aircraft type to use, conventional vs VSTOL, and subsequent redesigns - but it's still been 12 years instead of 6, and 6 was never going to be met in my opinion).
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as you have pointed out these super-weapons are protecting China’s new carriers so they must be good and the carriers completely invulnerable.
I didn't call them super-weapons (they're one-up on the Type 730, itself equivalent to the early-80s Goalkeeper) nor did I assess their performance or claim they made the carrier invulnerable. (Not a whole hell of a lot of use against a torpedo, are they?)
I do find the PLAN's continued evolution of gun-based CIWS quite interesting.
I didn't call them super-weapons (they're one-up on the Type 730, itself equivalent to the early-80s Goalkeeper) nor did I assess their performance or claim they made the carrier invulnerable. (Not a whole hell of a lot of use against a torpedo, are they?)
I do find the PLAN's continued evolution of gun-based CIWS quite interesting.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South Skerry
Posts: 305
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After the retirement of JFH under the 2010 SDSR, the reversion to STOVL in 2012 and the Pentagon's IOC decision in 2013, the UK carrier program was largely paced by airplane availability.
Since the USMC and AF IOC configurations (2B and 3i respectively) are not being supported for partners, the first operational export configuration (with the exception of Israel as always) is a post-IOT&E 3F.
Since the USMC and AF IOC configurations (2B and 3i respectively) are not being supported for partners, the first operational export configuration (with the exception of Israel as always) is a post-IOT&E 3F.