Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 29th Nov 2018, 20:11
  #5321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,340
Originally Posted by glad rag View Post
So when exactly did the USA switch to Single Front warfare capabilities?
Clinton Administration, why do you ask? Were you really unaware of how deep the cuts went during that 8 year period?
The Two Major Regional Contingencies force, which was the basis of the original Bush/Cheney "the cold war is over" drawdown, died in the mid to late 90's when Clinton/Panetta accelerated the draw down and steppened the slope. Since then, the size of the Navy has shrunk yet again, significantly, spreading less jam over the same slice of bread.
The US has been left with "one Major Regional Contingency and hope for the rest" or as the eternal optimists call it "One MRC and hold" ... "on yeah, and rely on allies" which is another topic entirely. (Some allies are easier to work with than others ... it all depends on what one is trying to accomplish)
That's the standing capability. (IMO, at best)
The decision to go into Iraq was a surge, and was based on the "this won't take long" fantasy in Rummy and Cheney's fevered imaginations.
It became a sustained effort, and then a sustained surge, of capability that exposed some interesting holes in the underwear. These holes were allegedly to be addressed in the "Recapitalization Program" that General Casey briefed the Congress on in the early 00's.
And then came the 8 years under Obama, and a (not unreasonable) political objective to trim down a defense establishment that had bloated a bit in the previous 8 years, and particularly the previous 5 once Iraq became a thing.
Handled clumsily, at best. The infamous political scrap that turned into "sequester" had some knock on effects.
Trump has been throwing money at some problems: I honestly don't understand what his priorities are. Dealing with a shrunken fleet seems not to be one of them.
We'll see if Secretary Mattis sticks around long enough to stabilize the larger muscle movements. (Trump can't seem to keep anyone on staff for very long; either he tires of them, or they tire of him. That has an impact on any mid to long term planning and programming).
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2018, 09:14
  #5322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,633
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50 View Post
Clinton Administration, why do you ask? Were you really unaware of how deep the cuts went during that 8 year period?
The Two Major Regional Contingencies force, which was the basis of the original Bush/Cheney "the cold war is over" drawdown, died in the mid to late 90's when Clinton/Panetta accelerated the draw down and steppened the slope. Since then, the size of the Navy has shrunk yet again, significantly, spreading less jam over the same slice of bread.
The US has been left with "one Major Regional Contingency and hope for the rest" or as the eternal optimists call it "One MRC and hold" ... "on yeah, and rely on allies" which is another topic entirely. (Some allies are easier to work with than others ... it all depends on what one is trying to accomplish)
That's the standing capability. (IMO, at best)
The decision to go into Iraq was a surge, and was based on the "this won't take long" fantasy in Rummy and Cheney's fevered imaginations.
It became a sustained effort, and then a sustained surge, of capability that exposed some interesting holes in the underwear. These holes were allegedly to be addressed in the "Recapitalization Program" that General Casey briefed the Congress on in the early 00's.
And then came the 8 years under Obama, and a (not unreasonable) political objective to trim down a defense establishment that had bloated a bit in the previous 8 years, and particularly the previous 5 once Iraq became a thing.
Handled clumsily, at best. The infamous political scrap that turned into "sequester" had some knock on effects.
Trump has been throwing money at some problems: I honestly don't understand what his priorities are. Dealing with a shrunken fleet seems not to be one of them.
We'll see if Secretary Mattis sticks around long enough to stabilize the larger muscle movements. (Trump can't seem to keep anyone on staff for very long; either he tires of them, or they tire of him. That has an impact on any mid to long term planning and programming).
He does seem pretty ignorant in matters of defence. Still could've been worse.....

Thanks for the round up anyway.
glad rag is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2018, 09:57
  #5323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 802
Isn't there talk of ordering 2 x Fords at a time? They did that with some of the Nimitz class and saved about US$1 Bn a ship - as well as being able to deliver them a bit faster...............
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 07:23
  #5324 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,437
I want to post two things:

1. The mighty Sea Harrier is still contributing to the Navy's capabilities:


Doing it at sea is another kettle of fish though. The RN has boxed clever to be able to be safe with F-35B, an altogether noisier and more powerful aircraft.

2. A recent report on the flanks of NATO and how to protect them, suggests carriers, including ours, are going to be important in NATO roles:
  • The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
  • NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Dec 2018 at 21:16.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 17:46
  #5325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 2,041
Secret mission to the Arctic: going Cats d Traps suddenly

Looks like no Rest For The Wicked..

QE has been raked sorry tasked to the Arctic

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hms-...sport-mission/

quote says “The new carrier was returning from recent trials with F-35 jets but it’s understood that she is being redirected for this mission. The vessel is being deployed to act as an emergency landing option should the cargo aircraft require its usage and the loading of provisions”

I know some will be rubbing their hands with glee cos thinking that magically overnight the QE will have CASTOBAr and can secretly take a C-2COD lol

I suspect anyhow Rudolf be proud to touch his skids in deck...

In all seriousnes if in extreme circumstances emergencies, could our new flagship take on say a troubled F/A-18E/F / EA-18G or even an E-2/C-2 ( probably with a lot of nets and stuff but could not re launch).

cheers




Last edited by chopper2004; 4th Dec 2018 at 21:28.
chopper2004 is offline  
Old 4th Dec 2018, 18:31
  #5326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: avro country
Age: 68
Posts: 174
The announcement says cargo............. Probably going to support Santa's take off at crimble in case he gets a failed reindeer after takeoff.
Linedog is offline  
Old 5th Dec 2018, 06:54
  #5327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,092
The answer to the F-18 ‘in extremis’ question is ‘No, but if they wanted to eject somewhere close by then QNLZ could pick them up.’

orca is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 03:29
  #5328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Isn't there talk of ordering 2 x Fords at a time? They did that with some of the Nimitz class and saved about US$1 Bn a ship - as well as being able to deliver them a bit faster...............
There is talk of authorizing and doing a multi-year contract for two, but the US does not have the capability any more to build two carriers simultaneously. With all the closures and cutbacks over the decades, Newport News has the only two drydocks capable of building a new CVN, and only one of them is available for that purpose.

The reason is that only one of those docks is capable of accommodating a carrier of operational displacement. The other dock is the one used to assemble carriers, and at a certain point the carrier is floated out and towed to the pier where the ship is completed in the water, which takes at least another year or more. The reason they don't use the bigger dock is that because it can accommodate a fully operational carrier, it is the dock used for carriers going through RICOH. Because of that, scheduling of that dock is critical. At one point the Obama Administration was talking of postponing the RICOH of one of the carriers, but the net effect of that (because of the next carriers in line) would have been to retire a carrier with half of its useful life left. A back door way of reducing the carrier fleet.

We once were able to build more than one CVN at a time, and it did save buckets of money because long lead time items could be ordered in bulk and as certain parts of the workforce finished types of tasks on one ship they could move over to the ship that was at an earlier stage of construction rather than laying them off or paying for part of the workforce to do other things until the nest carrier was started. It also helps pass down institutional knowledge which reduced costs because the workforce didn't have to relearn the task with each ship. In those days the CVNs were new enough that they weren't yet regularly going through RICOH so both docks could be used.

If they were authorized and funded to do so, a CVN could be built in four years using normal work weeks and would cost at least a billion dollars less.
Commando Cody is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2018, 10:36
  #5329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 54
Posts: 379
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
I want to post two things:

1. The mighty Sea Harrier is still contributing to the Navy's capabilities:

https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/sta...26556037271552

Doing it at sea is another kettle of fish though. The RN has boxed clever to be able to be safe with F-35B, an altogether noisier and more powerful aircraft.

2. A recent report on the flanks of NATO and how to protect them, suggests carriers, including ours, are going to be important in NATO roles:
  • The UK’s Royal Navy should take the lead in any early effort to counter offensive Russian submarine operations via a multi-national task group centred upon one of the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.
  • NATO requires a pro-active strategy to degrade and defend against Moscow’s ship, submarine, air and ground-launched cruise and ballistic missile capability based in and staging out of the Arctic region – a campaign that would require a wartime multi-carrier deployment by the US Navy and the basing of substantial forces in Iceland, the UK and Norway.
Multinational task group, they say? Just as well its not one of ours alone, given the paucity of Astutes, ASW Capability both on ship and LRMPA and assets to defend such a capital vessel. Sounds like a surefire suicide mission against a resurgent Russian Norfleet sub force.
Jabba_TG12 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 07:52
  #5330 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,437
Originally Posted by Jabba_TG12 View Post
Multinational task group, they say? Just as well its not one of ours alone, given the paucity of Astutes, ASW Capability both on ship and LRMPA and assets to defend such a capital vessel. Sounds like a surefire suicide mission against a resurgent Russian Norfleet sub force.
NATO task groups do tend to be multinational. For the recent Exercise Trident Juncture the US assault ship Iwo Jima had two Type 23 frigates for ASW (with towed array sonar and Merlin). For a carrier deployed for real the two frigates (probably more in a real crisis) would be joined by a Type 45 destroyer (probably more in a real crisis), a SSN, RFAs (which can operate helicopters) and units from other nations.

That article refers to a carrier based ASW task group. ASW is a carrier role - any situation in the Northern flank would involve lots of seaborne logistics needing protection and amphibious forces.

I did mention ASW back on page 245 of this very thread:

.....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.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 7th Dec 2018, 08:06
  #5331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,839
Off the top of my head a Merlin has a cruising speed of 150 knots and an endurance of five hours
I recall in the 80s when Merlin numbers were being debated, the rule of thumb handed down to us was 5 would do the job of 8 Sea King Mk5s. (Mk6 didn't exist then). The beancounters asked how many Mk5s we had (and prove it). The answer was - we're contracting the conversion of 82 to Mk6 - which was a little optimistic but raised the Merlin numbers so the inevitable cut would bring us down to something acceptable. At the same time, we knew the SUS/DUS fleet was being reduced from 50 to 32. It must be under 20 now.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 00:04
  #5332 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,437
Well we did manage to put nine aboard Illustrious for Exercise Deep Blue in 2014 - her last hurrah. The Merlin (HM/Pinger) force has been reorganised to provide an enlarged 820 NAS for the carrier, 814 NAS for UK based operations and Type 23 flights, and 824 NAS for training.

In other news - HMS Queen Elizabeth has returned from the WESTLANT 18 deployment.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 11th Dec 2018, 06:31
  #5333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
.
.....back on page 245 of this very thread:

OMG....

Not read this thread for a while, but very well done to all concerned in getting to where we are now and best of luck for the future.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 15:40
  #5334 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,437
Could we generate a decent task group? Well a few months ago, in mid October.....

HMS Queen Elizabeth was escorted by the Type 23 Monmouth during her trials, and supported by the tanker RFA Tidespring. At the same time RN ships were committed to Exercise Trident Juncture - two Type 23s providing ASW for the USS Iwo Jima, which had Royal Marines aboard, and a force of four MCMV and a Survey ship as their command platform. There was probably a SSN there as well.

At the same time Albion (LPD) and RFA Mounts Bay (LSD(A)) were committed to Saif Sareea 3 with a large part of 3 Cdo Bde. There was a Type 45 taking part in SS3, although she was doing it was part of a routine deployment - there was another Type 45 deployed in the Eastern Med at the same time.

Thinking of Sun Tzu/Clauswitz and 'concentration of force', what if this had been a fully worked up task group, with a fully worked up carrier and air group?

1 x carrier (with up to 24 x F-35B, 9 x Merlin HM2, plus Crowsnest and Junglies)
1 x LPD (with bootnecks)
1 X LSD(A) (with more bootnecks)
1 or 2 x Type 45
3 x Type 23
4 x MCMV, plus SVHO (Survey vessel) as command platform
Multiple RFA tankers/stores ships
1 x SSN (at least)

What if we were able to do things like the Auriga 2010 deployment, but with Queen Elizabeth and F-35B instead of Ark Royal (V) and Harrier GR9, and Type 45 instead of Type 42? That is what the RN will soon be doing.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Dec 2018 at 17:41. Reason: Attention to detail...
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 15th Dec 2018, 17:09
  #5335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: front seat, facing forwards
Posts: 998
Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic View Post
Could we generate a decent task group? Well a few months ago, in mid October.....

HMS Queen Elizabeth was escorted by the Type 23 Monmouth during her trials, and supported by the tanker RFA Tidespring. At the same time RN ships were committed to Exercise Trident Juncture - two Type 23s providing ASW for the USS Iwo Jima, which had Royal Marines aboard, and a force of four MCMV and a Survey ship as their command platform. There was probably a SSN there as well.

At the same time Albion (LPD) and RFA Mounts Bay (LSD(A)) were committed to Saif Sareea 3 with a large part of 3 Cdo Bde. There was a Type 45 taking part in SS3, although she was doing it was part of a routine deployment - there was another Type 45 deployed in the Eastern Med at the same time.

Thinking of Sun Tzu/Clauswitz and 'concentration of force', what if this had been a fully worked up task group, with a fully worked up carrier and air group?

1 x carrier (with up to 24 x F-45B, 9 x Merlin HM2, plus Crowsnest and Junglies)
1 x LPD (with bootnecks)
1 X LSD(A) (with more bootnecks)
1 or 2 x Type 45
3 x Type 23
4 x MCMV, plus SVHO (Survey vessel) as command platform
Multiple RFA tankers/stores ships
1 x SSN (at least)

What if we were able to do things like the Auriga 2010 deployment, but with Queen Elizabeth and F-35B instead of Ark Royal (V) and Harrier GR9, and Type 45 instead of Type 42? That is what the RN will soon be doing.
24 x F45s.....they must be very stealthy! No-one's ever even seen one of those.
just another jocky is offline  
Old 27th Dec 2018, 10:03
  #5336 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,437
I see the issue of logistics/COD has been visited again on PPRuNe: USN Commissions VRM30
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 01:13
  #5337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,264
SARF,

Love the aerial pics.. great to see a RN vessel next to the USN carriers and not look like a tender.
Probably more a matter of perspective.
SASless is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 11:33
  #5338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 49
Posts: 136
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
SARF,



Probably more a matter of perspective.
Not really, the QECs are the same width, draft and height above the waterline as a CVN, they are just 100ft shorter and 30,000 tonnes lighter.
Obi Wan Russell is offline  
Old 28th Dec 2018, 15:33
  #5339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 802
Seaforth World Naval Review: 2019 Seaforth World Naval Review: 2019
by Conrad Waters reviews both the Fords and the QE class this edition - he points out that things like dimensions are set by the size of aircraft, hence the hangar, and things like how far above the water any large holes in the side have to be - hence the QE's had to be made somewhat bigger than planned at one stage and the rather similar set of dimensions. Flight deck is driven by overall number of aircraft and desired sortie rate
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2018, 15:33
  #5340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 87
Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
Not really, the QECs are the same width, draft and height above the waterline as a CVN, they are just 100ft shorter and 30,000 tonnes lighter.
Are CVNs armoured?
weemonkey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.