Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Lon UK
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsound WE Branch and George, I stand corrected. It is indeed historically and traditionally ‘she'.
I also apologise to the lady in question. One who deserves respect.
Long may God bless her and all who sail in her.
I also apologise to the lady in question. One who deserves respect.
Long may God bless her and all who sail in her.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the UK Defence Journal website:
All I think about when I see pic of the QE leaving Gib is "Give me a ping Vasili - One Ping Only..........."
At the end of the day, it's still one very big basket for an awful lot of very expensive eggs and some dubiety over the ability to man it and all of the support ships (and their capabilities) at the same time. I remain to be convinced that there is a practical use for them and a REAL justification for them as I'm still of the opinion that they came about as a Blair/Brown ego trip.
Can you imagine trying to justify a class of two ships where only one will ever get to go to sea at a time in a commercial operation?
I've had the opportunity over the past few years to watch QE & PoW take shape as I've gone to & from work, and while each is undoubtedly a very capable ship, I think, as a nation, we've lost the plot.
Instead of one very large capital ship (it's 2 hulls, but will only ever be one in use at a time), I think We (as one of the only 2 island nations in Europe) should have looked at series building a range of simple but robust frigate, destroyer and cruiser equivalents to reduce the number of admirals and captains that appear to be permanently desk-bound and increase the number of tasks that can be undertaken at once. After all if you send "The" Carrier, it looks like the best part of half of the remaining RN fleet will need to go with it, all to deal with one task. What happens to flying the flag and display the much vaunted "soft power" [with something to back it up] in the rest of the world?
It's not as if we can rely on the red duster to cover for the white ensign's absence - the days of the UK owned, flagged & manned fleets is gone.
I don't have a solution, I just have the feeling that there needs to be some serious re-thinking about what the extreme levels of technology that goes into the current & planned fleet actually gets us versus what we pay for it and how long we have to use it to get a return on the investment. I think the balance has moved too far away from simple, relatively cheap and flexible equipment that can be turned over every 10-15 years and too far into something horribly complicated, hugely expensive, of unproven capabilities and that needs to be kept in service for half a century to break even. I'd always go for basic technology run by a large number of flexible humans rather than the latest technology with a few humans on board in case the "CTRL+ALT+DEL" button needs to be pressed.
Feel free to disagree or support the above to your heart's content. I doubt there's a real answer anyway.
At the end of the day, it's still one very big basket for an awful lot of very expensive eggs and some dubiety over the ability to man it and all of the support ships (and their capabilities) at the same time. I remain to be convinced that there is a practical use for them and a REAL justification for them as I'm still of the opinion that they came about as a Blair/Brown ego trip.
Can you imagine trying to justify a class of two ships where only one will ever get to go to sea at a time in a commercial operation?
I've had the opportunity over the past few years to watch QE & PoW take shape as I've gone to & from work, and while each is undoubtedly a very capable ship, I think, as a nation, we've lost the plot.
Instead of one very large capital ship (it's 2 hulls, but will only ever be one in use at a time), I think We (as one of the only 2 island nations in Europe) should have looked at series building a range of simple but robust frigate, destroyer and cruiser equivalents to reduce the number of admirals and captains that appear to be permanently desk-bound and increase the number of tasks that can be undertaken at once. After all if you send "The" Carrier, it looks like the best part of half of the remaining RN fleet will need to go with it, all to deal with one task. What happens to flying the flag and display the much vaunted "soft power" [with something to back it up] in the rest of the world?
It's not as if we can rely on the red duster to cover for the white ensign's absence - the days of the UK owned, flagged & manned fleets is gone.
I don't have a solution, I just have the feeling that there needs to be some serious re-thinking about what the extreme levels of technology that goes into the current & planned fleet actually gets us versus what we pay for it and how long we have to use it to get a return on the investment. I think the balance has moved too far away from simple, relatively cheap and flexible equipment that can be turned over every 10-15 years and too far into something horribly complicated, hugely expensive, of unproven capabilities and that needs to be kept in service for half a century to break even. I'd always go for basic technology run by a large number of flexible humans rather than the latest technology with a few humans on board in case the "CTRL+ALT+DEL" button needs to be pressed.
Feel free to disagree or support the above to your heart's content. I doubt there's a real answer anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 'commercial operation' is designed to make money/profit, the armed forces are not a 'commercial operation'...
-RP
And they will both be in service at the same time, as commented on by both politicians and the RN.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They'll officially be "in service" but the 2015 Govt Review only said that "one would be available at all times" .................... the other will be in dock are parked up the way "Bristol" was for years
It said, and has been clarified many times since, that both would be in service at the same time to guarantee availability of at least one vessel at all times.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh - so only one is available.............. the rest is smoke and mirrors
No doubt given the shortage of aircraft and crew the whole lot will have to move home every time they make the other one "available"
No doubt given the shortage of aircraft and crew the whole lot will have to move home every time they make the other one "available"
No, you clearly misunderstood, read it again.
Your constant attempts to belittle and malign everything British, Naval and military are becoming extremely tiresome.
Your constant attempts to belittle and malign everything British, Naval and military are becoming extremely tiresome.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk...or-84-million/
By the RN.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pr00ne
I try and see things as they are not as we would wish they are
if you look at my posts you'd have to agree that I am a constant supporter of more money being spent on our armed forces. But that doesn't mean we should spend money (especially when it is very short) on recreating a historic capability at the cost of cutting into what are the core requirements - more T45's, T26's, Astutes, an Ocean replacement - and as ever more helicopters - are what we really need.
I try and see things as they are not as we would wish they are
if you look at my posts you'd have to agree that I am a constant supporter of more money being spent on our armed forces. But that doesn't mean we should spend money (especially when it is very short) on recreating a historic capability at the cost of cutting into what are the core requirements - more T45's, T26's, Astutes, an Ocean replacement - and as ever more helicopters - are what we really need.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Donkey497
All I think about when I see pic of the QE leaving Gib is "Give me a ping Vasili - One Ping Only..........."
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 (so does Type 45), and carry Wildcats which can carry ASW weapons (as does the T45). Most RFAs will also carry either Merlin or Wildcat.
Originally Posted by Donkey497
I remain to be convinced that there is a practical use for them
A fleet of DD/FF has little in terms of balanced capability because it cannot go anywhere where there is an air threat, unless it has maritime air cover - something that has proved virtually impossible to supply from land cost-effectively. That air threat could be as low capability as a Thai carrier with AV8As, but because (relatively) it can command the maritime airspace, it trumps a T45 or a helo carrier because it can hold the helo at threat. A DD/FF force is therefore limited to an area of influence not much further than the horizon. There is no use for a DD/FF heavy force with no maritime air. The nearest example is the JMSDF and they are structured to defend the sea of Japan and not much else. We (allegedly) don't have a threat to home waters anymore, certainly not one that justifies hordes of DD/FF.
Written by someone far more of an expert than me. You could also try looking in ATP-1(G), if you have access.
Originally Posted by Donkey497
....the days of the UK owned, flagged & manned fleets is gone.
Heathrow Harry
I refer you to the above. As for availability, it is more nuanced than being a binary ready for operations/not ready. Assuming one carrier is deployed, the other may be undergoing maintenance, training and working up, recovering post deployment, training aircrew and others.
Originally Posted by HH
But that doesn't mean we should spend money (especially when it is very short) on recreating a historic capability at the cost of cutting into what are the core requirements - more T45's, T26's, Astutes, an Ocean replacement - and as ever more helicopters - are what we really need.
More T45s - can they provide the same level of defence as carrier based F-35Bs?
More T26 - can they provide the same level of ASW capability of carrier based helicopters?
More Astutes - nice idea, but UK Submarine building capacity is maxed out with the last few A boats and Successor.
An Ocean replacement - you mean like a ship with a large flight deck and a large hangar?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK isn't alone in carrier issues, the US Navy's New $13 Billion aircraft carrier has some serious problems. But, a few billion here, a few billion there—pretty soon, we’ll be talking about a working aircraft carrier.
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-geral...navy-problems/
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-geral...navy-problems/
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trouble is WeB we'll have to use a significant amount of what we have in one place to protect the Carrier.........
and unless we buy more non-Carrier units that means we'll have a far more concentrated Navy than we currently have.............
Most, if not all, of the work the T45's and T26's will do is NOT high intensity warfare against a major power - it;s being in the FI, the Gulf, the Med and the N Sea ... and all at the same time...........
and unless we buy more non-Carrier units that means we'll have a far more concentrated Navy than we currently have.............
Most, if not all, of the work the T45's and T26's will do is NOT high intensity warfare against a major power - it;s being in the FI, the Gulf, the Med and the N Sea ... and all at the same time...........
The UK isn't alone in carrier issues
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-geral...navy-problems/
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-geral...navy-problems/
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even us naysayers would agree it was wise to stay away from being a technology development platform
The USN have 10 carriers so delaying one is expensive and embarrassing but VERY different when you're only building 2...
The USN have 10 carriers so delaying one is expensive and embarrassing but VERY different when you're only building 2...
Indeed it would have been. BZ to the thousands of skilled UK workers who have caused them to turn out so well.