Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Originally Posted by Donkey497
....the days of the UK owned, flagged & manned fleets is gone.
I thought the number of UK register vessels had increased since 2000?
Tonnage has gone up, but most of it is foreign owned and foreign manned. Long gone are the days when a British flagged ship had to carry a British Master.
Very difficult to man a British flagged ship with all British crew when necessary, e.g. MOD charter using sensitive RN facilities.
....the days of the UK owned, flagged & manned fleets is gone.
I thought the number of UK register vessels had increased since 2000?
Tonnage has gone up, but most of it is foreign owned and foreign manned. Long gone are the days when a British flagged ship had to carry a British Master.
Very difficult to man a British flagged ship with all British crew when necessary, e.g. MOD charter using sensitive RN facilities.
Thread Starter
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...........
I think you overstate the number of escorts needed. Actually the air defence and ASW (and AEW) capabilities provided by the air group reduce the number of escorts needed for an amphibious task group, or logistics shipping, or a mine hunting force, or.....
Originally Posted by Low Level Pilot
Tonnage has gone up, but most of it is foreign owned and foreign manned. Long gone are the days when a British flagged ship had to carry a British Master.
Very difficult to man a British flagged ship with all British crew when necessary, e.g. MOD charter using sensitive RN facilities.
Very difficult to man a British flagged ship with all British crew when necessary, e.g. MOD charter using sensitive RN facilities.
However, this is not relevant to the point Donkey497 made. Britain continues to be a maritime nation dependent on seaborne trade, and any response of an international crisis will involve shipping, probably chartered on the open market. As such we have an interest in protecting them.
Meanwhile - First fixed wing pilots join HMS Queen Elizabeth
The data gathered during the trials will enable the ship to declare Initial Operating Capability (IOC) as a Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) later this year, a role held most recently by HMS Ocean.
Royal Marines from 42 Commando have also been on board during this trials period, undergoing Assault training – whereby they are processed through the ship and launched by helicopter to conduct operations ashore.
Well - there we are. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Of Wales ARE the replacement for Ocean.
Also joining the ship is Commander James Blackmore who takes up the role of Commander Air, more affectionately known as ‘Wings’. Joining HMS Queen Elizabeth directly from Command of the Fixed Wing Force at RNAS Culdrose, and having the privilege of piloting the last ever Sea Harrier to launch from HMS Ark Royal, he will oversee the integration of the Joint Strike Fighter and its supporting elements.
“This is something we have all waited for about 20 years to see, it’s very exciting and a real privilege to be a part of”, he said. “The main challenge for us is getting focused on bringing a jet to sea again, and that’s not a simple prospect. There are only a handful of nations in the world who operate aircraft carriers and aircraft at sea.
“In simple terms, when an aircraft leaves the deck, it leaves its runway and the runway isn’t where it left it when it comes back. The runway pitches, rolls, heaves, moves, gets covered in waves – all those things are at play when you bring an aircraft onto the deck. That will be a unique thing for many of our people, and we need to train to understand and work with the challenges involved in conducting our air operations safely”.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Royal Navy exists to be capable of fighting wars."
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
"The Royal Navy exists to be capable of fighting wars."
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
One might equally argue that the submarines were incapable of disrupting the air resupply of the islands and that the war was actually won by forcibly ejecting the garrison. Something only possible by being able to defend the landing force ships against air attack.
By your logic, given that we've fought precisely no wars since Korea against an opponent with similar capabilities in aircraft, there is no need for Typhoon....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One might equally argue that the submarines were incapable of disrupting the air resupply of the islands and that the war was actually won by forcibly ejecting the garrison. Something only possible by being able to defend the landing force ships against air attack.
By your logic, given that we've fought precisely no wars since Korea against an opponent with similar capabilities in aircraft, there is no need for Typhoon....
By your logic, given that we've fought precisely no wars since Korea against an opponent with similar capabilities in aircraft, there is no need for Typhoon....
Not on a large scale although IIRC a number of RAF pilots fought in Korea on secondment to the USAF and RAAF. Also Sunderlands relocated to Japan flew reconnaissance patrols around the peninsula and I think we had some Austers in Korea on spotting duties.
Not sure why you jumped to RAF.
Point being we've only fought air to air "against an opponent with similar capabilities in aircraft" once since Korea. So, by your logic no need for Typhoon.
Simples.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed - we'd have saved a bucket load of cash - on the other hand we CAN & do export Typhoons - I don't see a long line of buyers for new (as opposed to slightly used in 10 years) carriers.........................
I do wish you'd stick to the point you're trying to make.
First it was that the RN didn't need to be able to fight wars. Then it was that the RAF didn't fight in Korea. Now it appears to be that we've exported a few dozen Typhoon and that carriers may not be exportable on that scale.
Do you have a point or are we in random whataboutery?
First it was that the RN didn't need to be able to fight wars. Then it was that the RAF didn't fight in Korea. Now it appears to be that we've exported a few dozen Typhoon and that carriers may not be exportable on that scale.
Do you have a point or are we in random whataboutery?
I do wish you'd stick to the point you're trying to make.
First it was that the RN didn't need to be able to fight wars. Then it was that the RAF didn't fight in Korea. Now it appears to be that we've exported a few dozen Typhoon and that carriers may not be exportable on that scale.
Do you have a point or are we in random whataboutery?
First it was that the RN didn't need to be able to fight wars. Then it was that the RAF didn't fight in Korea. Now it appears to be that we've exported a few dozen Typhoon and that carriers may not be exportable on that scale.
Do you have a point or are we in random whataboutery?
Thread Starter
Heathrow Harry
I am not entirely sure what you are advocating. High end warships are exactly that - they are optimised for high end warfighting.
So as long as there is no war....? Are you really predicting none will fire a shot in anger? Even developing nations can buy all sorts of advanced weapons these days. Just a few anti ship missile armed aircraft, or MiGs threatening helicopters, or a hostile submarine, or even a non state group with anti ship missiles could be a game changer if no counter existed.
Are you advocating fully advanced ships performing all roles, even maritime security roles in low threat areas, or are you suggesting dearming them on cost grounds?
Are you really suggesting the Falklands War could have been won with fighting Argentine aircraft and landing troops ashore?
As for the 73 years bit, there were ship to ship engagements in both Korea and Suez, and one or two ship/air engagements, and naval involvement in other post World War Two conflicts. The main focus from 1945 until the 1991 or so was of course the Cold War. We have already mentioned the Falklands, the Navy was also busy in the Gulf and the Adriatic throughout the nineties. Would it surprise you to learn deployed warships have frequently been busy this decade and the last one too, in roles such as ASW, or controlling aircraft?
There appears to be no export market for T45/T26/Astute either - yet you think we should build more. I am sure you are aware how many components for F-35 (particularly the F-35B) are UK made, and the benefit for the wider (including civil) aerospace industry, well we also export all sorts of things for both commercial and naval ships.
Gas turbines, propulsion gear, generators, steering gear, stabilisers, electrical distribution equipment, firefighting equipment, cranes, RIBS and small craft, lighting, radar, navigation equipment, communications systems, catering equipment, survival systems, deck equipment, cathodic protection systems, design and consultancy services... That is off the top of my head.
The UK does export carrier specific (or carrier like) equipment such as aircraft lifts or landing aids. I suspect the deck coating developed for the F-35B doing a vertical landing will represent another export opportunity.
Back to HMS Queen Elizabeth. She has completed her first RAS with the tanker RFA Tidespring.
The man in charge of safety for the evolution at the RAS point on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, Chief Petty Officer Jay Early, says the first successful RAS will be the culmination of years of planning and anticipation.
He added: "Meeting up with RFA Tidespring today is an exciting thing for us, we've been talking about it for a long time now. It's two new classes of ship, with another first for a British ship to have a double probe. It will be a real tick in the box for us to know we can achieve it", he said.
The double probe concept has been adopted from American carriers - it means twice the volume of fuel can be delivered within a shorter amount of time.
RASing, of course, is something a carrier has in common with every other type of warship. It also has to be deconflicted with the flying programme, as do things like boat drills, man overboard drills, and exercising close range weapon teams.
She has also completed her first of class rotary wing wing trials in the rough waters of the Atlantic.
A team of 56 aircrew, analysts and engineers from the Air Test and Evaluation Centre (ATEC) at MOD Boscombe Down have been onboard the aircraft carrier for the past month with two Merlin Mk2 and two Chinook Mk 5 test aircraft.
A thousand deck landings have been carried out in a range of sea and weather conditions, with the specially equipped helicopters gathering data to identify the operating limits of the aircraft from the carrier at sea. Both airframe types have flown an average of ten hours a day.
The data will be processed over the coming months and will eventually provide the Ship Helicopter Operating Limits (SHOL) information for a range of helicopters including Merlin Mk2, 3 and 4, Chinook, the Apache attack helicopter and Wildcat. The aim is to achieve the widest SHOL envelope possible, so the ship is not constrained in its ability to manoeuvre.
Neil Thomas, QinetiQ's Programme Technical Manager onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, says the trials have been very successful.
"It's gone extremely well, even through we had a very compressed timescale," he said. "We achieved 450 deck landings on Chinook and 540 on Merlin, which is pretty good going. This is definitely a once only career opportunity for us. It's been an enormous challenge but well worth it for what we have achieved for the Royal Navy".
Also:
HMS Queen Elizabeth's Commander Air, Cdr Mark Deller adds: "We have been operating on the likely limits that this ship will operate to and therefore have seen most of the weather conditions that we are likely to be exposed to. The ship has held up well, the deck is good and consequently the aircraft have behaved themselves, so all good news."
During the 2011 Libyan unpleasantness, some anti carrier types commented that because Charles De Gaulle had problems in higher sea states, all carriers had this. They missed the point about a ships movements being a function not only of the weather but her size. CDG was not significantly larger (38 000 tonnes) than the preceding French carriers (35 000 tonnes). By contrast, the QEC is 65 000 tonnes, giving a great deal of stability in any weather. Additionally STOVL operations are less sensitive to deck movement than CTOL ones.
I am sure this was not a deliberate omission, but a simple misunderstanding of how ship and sea interact, and ship and aircraft are integrated and one depends on the other.
Many posts ago on this thread, someone insisted a carrier is not a warship, as her weapons are her aircraft, and they are less dependent on the ship. I beg to differ - most modern naval missiles (post 1982) are fired vertically so there is no question of having to open arcs of fire, nor do they need wind across the deck for launch, and they do not need recovery. Missiles also tend not to move around on deck either.
Anyone with any knowledge of naval matters knows you are completely wrong, and you seem to lack the humily to accept that the RN, RAF, NATO and so on know what they are talking about.
I am not entirely sure what you are advocating. High end warships are exactly that - they are optimised for high end warfighting.
Originally Posted by HH
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...........
Are you advocating fully advanced ships performing all roles, even maritime security roles in low threat areas, or are you suggesting dearming them on cost grounds?
Originally Posted by HH
"The Royal Navy exists to be capable of fighting wars."
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
Indeed - but we've fought precisely one in 73 years against an opponent with similar capabilities in surface ships.................. and you could argue that from a naval point of view that was won by a submarine which kept the Argentineans (including their carrier) in port for the duration......
99% of operations have involved other tasks
As for the 73 years bit, there were ship to ship engagements in both Korea and Suez, and one or two ship/air engagements, and naval involvement in other post World War Two conflicts. The main focus from 1945 until the 1991 or so was of course the Cold War. We have already mentioned the Falklands, the Navy was also busy in the Gulf and the Adriatic throughout the nineties. Would it surprise you to learn deployed warships have frequently been busy this decade and the last one too, in roles such as ASW, or controlling aircraft?
Originally Posted by HH
Indeed - we'd have saved a bucket load of cash - on the other hand we CAN & do export Typhoons - I don't see a long line of buyers for new (as opposed to slightly used in 10 years) carriers.........................
Gas turbines, propulsion gear, generators, steering gear, stabilisers, electrical distribution equipment, firefighting equipment, cranes, RIBS and small craft, lighting, radar, navigation equipment, communications systems, catering equipment, survival systems, deck equipment, cathodic protection systems, design and consultancy services... That is off the top of my head.
The UK does export carrier specific (or carrier like) equipment such as aircraft lifts or landing aids. I suspect the deck coating developed for the F-35B doing a vertical landing will represent another export opportunity.
Back to HMS Queen Elizabeth. She has completed her first RAS with the tanker RFA Tidespring.
The man in charge of safety for the evolution at the RAS point on board HMS Queen Elizabeth, Chief Petty Officer Jay Early, says the first successful RAS will be the culmination of years of planning and anticipation.
He added: "Meeting up with RFA Tidespring today is an exciting thing for us, we've been talking about it for a long time now. It's two new classes of ship, with another first for a British ship to have a double probe. It will be a real tick in the box for us to know we can achieve it", he said.
The double probe concept has been adopted from American carriers - it means twice the volume of fuel can be delivered within a shorter amount of time.
RASing, of course, is something a carrier has in common with every other type of warship. It also has to be deconflicted with the flying programme, as do things like boat drills, man overboard drills, and exercising close range weapon teams.
She has also completed her first of class rotary wing wing trials in the rough waters of the Atlantic.
A team of 56 aircrew, analysts and engineers from the Air Test and Evaluation Centre (ATEC) at MOD Boscombe Down have been onboard the aircraft carrier for the past month with two Merlin Mk2 and two Chinook Mk 5 test aircraft.
A thousand deck landings have been carried out in a range of sea and weather conditions, with the specially equipped helicopters gathering data to identify the operating limits of the aircraft from the carrier at sea. Both airframe types have flown an average of ten hours a day.
The data will be processed over the coming months and will eventually provide the Ship Helicopter Operating Limits (SHOL) information for a range of helicopters including Merlin Mk2, 3 and 4, Chinook, the Apache attack helicopter and Wildcat. The aim is to achieve the widest SHOL envelope possible, so the ship is not constrained in its ability to manoeuvre.
Neil Thomas, QinetiQ's Programme Technical Manager onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, says the trials have been very successful.
"It's gone extremely well, even through we had a very compressed timescale," he said. "We achieved 450 deck landings on Chinook and 540 on Merlin, which is pretty good going. This is definitely a once only career opportunity for us. It's been an enormous challenge but well worth it for what we have achieved for the Royal Navy".
Also:
HMS Queen Elizabeth's Commander Air, Cdr Mark Deller adds: "We have been operating on the likely limits that this ship will operate to and therefore have seen most of the weather conditions that we are likely to be exposed to. The ship has held up well, the deck is good and consequently the aircraft have behaved themselves, so all good news."
During the 2011 Libyan unpleasantness, some anti carrier types commented that because Charles De Gaulle had problems in higher sea states, all carriers had this. They missed the point about a ships movements being a function not only of the weather but her size. CDG was not significantly larger (38 000 tonnes) than the preceding French carriers (35 000 tonnes). By contrast, the QEC is 65 000 tonnes, giving a great deal of stability in any weather. Additionally STOVL operations are less sensitive to deck movement than CTOL ones.
I am sure this was not a deliberate omission, but a simple misunderstanding of how ship and sea interact, and ship and aircraft are integrated and one depends on the other.
Many posts ago on this thread, someone insisted a carrier is not a warship, as her weapons are her aircraft, and they are less dependent on the ship. I beg to differ - most modern naval missiles (post 1982) are fired vertically so there is no question of having to open arcs of fire, nor do they need wind across the deck for launch, and they do not need recovery. Missiles also tend not to move around on deck either.
Anyone with any knowledge of naval matters knows you are completely wrong, and you seem to lack the humily to accept that the RN, RAF, NATO and so on know what they are talking about.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 27th Mar 2018 at 08:13.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think both sides of this argument are pretty well aware of the directions we're both coming from - we both feel the other is wrong (and maybe deluded) - and neither side shows much sign of converting the other.
I would summarise as follows:-
Pro's - a real upgrade/restoration of a major force multiplier that will enable performance of tasks we can't do currently and will also enable us to do some current tasks better
Anti's - at best a nice-to-have but will have a really negative effect on the future overall force structure, operation and manning of the rest of the Navy
Both would probably be happy if there was proper funding that allowed a decent sized and resourced navy that could include carriers
You pays you money and take's your choice
We've managed to keep the argument (relatively civilised)- certainly compared to some others but rather than loop round again ad-infinitum I suggest we await events...............
I would summarise as follows:-
Pro's - a real upgrade/restoration of a major force multiplier that will enable performance of tasks we can't do currently and will also enable us to do some current tasks better
Anti's - at best a nice-to-have but will have a really negative effect on the future overall force structure, operation and manning of the rest of the Navy
Both would probably be happy if there was proper funding that allowed a decent sized and resourced navy that could include carriers
You pays you money and take's your choice
We've managed to keep the argument (relatively civilised)- certainly compared to some others but rather than loop round again ad-infinitum I suggest we await events...............
Thread Starter
As for manpower, that is a complex issue, but the ships you propose as alternatives would also need manning. The manning totals are set by disinterested politicians, but apart from that a number of issues are being worked on with various initiatives. Will the carriers help with recruitment and retention? Probably.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF wet yourself
However it was disappointing, in this time of austerity, that they were throwing the excess from the mini gun over the side.
I think both sides of this argument are pretty well aware of the directions we're both coming from - we both feel the other is wrong (and maybe deluded) - and neither side shows much sign of converting the other.
I would summarise as follows:-
Pro's - a real upgrade/restoration of a major force multiplier that will enable performance of tasks we can't do currently and will also enable us to do some current tasks better
Anti's - at best a nice-to-have but will have a really negative effect on the future overall force structure, operation and manning of the rest of the Navy
Both would probably be happy if there was proper funding that allowed a decent sized and resourced navy that could include carriers
You pays you money and take's your choice
We've managed to keep the argument (relatively civilised)- certainly compared to some others but rather than loop round again ad-infinitum I suggest we await events...............
I would summarise as follows:-
Pro's - a real upgrade/restoration of a major force multiplier that will enable performance of tasks we can't do currently and will also enable us to do some current tasks better
Anti's - at best a nice-to-have but will have a really negative effect on the future overall force structure, operation and manning of the rest of the Navy
Both would probably be happy if there was proper funding that allowed a decent sized and resourced navy that could include carriers
You pays you money and take's your choice
We've managed to keep the argument (relatively civilised)- certainly compared to some others but rather than loop round again ad-infinitum I suggest we await events...............
Apart from that, the position is absurd, like arguing for a standing UK Army of 1,000,000 combat troops or an RAF with 1000 combat aircraft, it just doesn't fit the reality of the UK place in the world. However, for those who see the big skimmers as some sort of holy grail, they are great. To me, they represent a grave mistake in UK Defence procurement that has (and will) cost the rest of UK Defence dearly in terms of other important capabilities and in depth of resource or reserve capacity we might need if, God forbid, we get into another serious confrontation.
OAP