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 22nd Jan 2019, 17:46
  #5361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 520
SARF & WEBF, I'll have a pint of whatever you're drinking
Harley Quinn is online now  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 12:06
  #5362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
@KenV tactical air group (TAG) basically you drag asssts as required from other formations based on required tasking. So a F35 squadron, some Metlins, green and blue, maybe chinooks and wildcats.

there is an issue that some RAF oriented views see deploying F35s as an option, or just a half squadron. Makes no sense to me! I can see one the carriers, when the TAG is amphibious oriented, only having a 1/2 squadron, but think that will never be a normal or strike config. When QE deploys in 2021 I expect it to have a full UK squadron and a USMC squadron. The normal becoming 2 squadrons of F35, sithbsurge ability beyond that!

now that does depend I think on us standing up 4 frontline squadrons of F35b. If some people get their way and we split the buy I canít see that happening. That to my mind seriously undermines CEPP, the whole point of the carriers!
PeterGee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 13:35
  #5363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Originally Posted by PeterGee View Post
Now that does depend I think on us standing up 4 frontline squadrons of F35b. If some people get their way and we split the buy I canít see that happening. That to my mind seriously undermines CEPP, the whole point of the carriers!
But look at it another way. If the detractors are successful in splitting the buy, then they can claim that the carriers never met the capability that was promised. And kill them.
KenV is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 19:07
  #5364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by KenV View Post
But look at it another way. If the detractors are successful in splitting the buy, then they can claim that the carriers never met the capability that was promised. And kill them.
indeed and whilst some do get it, there are swathes that do not value AirPower delivered from the sea.

PeterGee is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2019, 20:39
  #5365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,744
Originally Posted by PeterGee View Post
indeed and whilst some do get it, there are swathes that do not value AirPower delivered from the sea.
You have that opinion. Are the "swathes" wrong? Well, if you are talking American Carrier groups with strength in depth, then yes, that is a considerable capability. However, against a similarly capable adversary, they are always vulnerable to total elimination without having any effect. Moreover, the UK carriers do not offer a similar capability to a US Carrier group and represent a gross distortion of VFM against capability in the UK armoury.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2019, 18:18
  #5366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
You have that opinion. Are the "swathes" wrong? Well, if you are talking American Carrier groups with strength in depth, then yes, that is a considerable capability. However, against a similarly capable adversary, they are always vulnerable to total elimination without having any effect. Moreover, the UK carriers do not offer a similar capability to a US Carrier group and represent a gross distortion of VFM against capability in the UK armoury.

OAP
So of course my opinion is yes, very wrong! The swathes are of course RAF peeps, both here and serving. That said I am given to believe there is some support in the light blue service, at the more working level!.

Your opinion is of course well covered here and I have no expectation of having you change your view.

My reference would be the number conflicts since WW 2 were the littoral has been key. Not to say we should arm for the last conflict, but CEPP provides options abd flexibility. The ships are Swiss Army knives. F35B gives flexibility, at some trade off. If you don’t get the need to be flexible and the importance of air power at sea, I guess you will never see the value of the trade off. As someone who has spent time at sea, I 100% see that value.

Last edited by PeterGee; 25th Jan 2019 at 07:57.
PeterGee is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 13:05
  #5367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,744
Well PeterGee "someone who has spent time at sea". Care to say if RN? Strange, quite a few pro-carrier posters here seem to be somewhat coy. Oh yes, please do not feel free to define if I will or won't change my opinions! Likewise, spouting "If you donít get the need to be flexible and the importance of air power at sea, I guess you will never see the value of the trade off." is an insult to me so, desist!

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 13:13
  #5368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,092
I still fail to see why the Ski Ramp deck....when the ships are large enough for standard Cat Launches.

All the Ski Ramp does is prevent standard carrier ops....that doesn't seem very smart at all.
SASless is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 15:24
  #5369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 7
How about not having to spend many millions designing, manufacturing and installing large, heavy and complex catapult and arresting gear? How about not needing the extra crew members (including their training, accommodation, food etc.) needed to operate, maintain and repair them? How about not needing to carry bulky spare parts for them? They are a known Achilles heel, because if any element of them becomes unserviceable for any reason, conventional fixed wing air ops are impossible until they’re repaired. And of course the presence/absence of cats/traps is entirely irrelevant to the equally important rotary wing ASW/support helicopter/commando roles.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 19:22
  #5370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Dreamland
Posts: 520
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown View Post
How about not having to spend many millions designing, manufacturing and installing large, heavy and complex catapult and arresting gear? How about not needing the extra crew members (including their training, accommodation, food etc.) needed to operate, maintain and repair them? How about not needing to carry bulky spare parts for them? They are a known Achilles heel, because if any element of them becomes unserviceable for any reason, conventional fixed wing air ops are impossible until theyíre repaired. And of course the presence/absence of cats/traps is entirely irrelevant to the equally important rotary wing ASW/support helicopter/commando roles.
Entirely and absolutely true. Restricted to embarking a very limited range of FW ac operated, in the Western hemisphere by only two (I think) other nations and with an extremely limited radius of action. Its almost perfect, bring the ship inshore as close as possible to enable it to reach its target and expose it to land based ac.
Genius.
Harley Quinn is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 03:01
  #5371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,092
Spending Millions designing Cats.....dear boy they already exist in many forms.

Build them under license.....there....problem sorted. Same for the arresting gear.

Then you could operate F-35's, F-18's, COD's, Carrier AWACS Aircraft, UAV's.....aircraff from many NATO nations.

Lots more parking room for aircraft as well....then you could carry more than a half squadron.

But what price flexibility and capability.....when it really doesn't matter as your Carrier is not meant to be used anyway.



SASless is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 09:39
  #5372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Spending Millions designing Cats.....dear boy they already exist in many forms.
Only if your carrier has steam generating plant, which the QE Class do not, in which case your only choice is develop your own, which the UK did some initial work on, or buy the untested EMALS from the US. EMALS doesn't seem to be working out too well so buying that would have caused even more delays to the programme.

Lots more parking room for aircraft as well....then you could carry more than a half squadron.
Not really, there's as much room as on a CVN, it's just rather than moving the others out of the way to launch on a CVN you move them out of the way to land.
Bing is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 09:52
  #5373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 513
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
I still fail to see why the Ski Ramp deck....when the ships are large enough for standard Cat Launches.

All the Ski Ramp does is prevent standard carrier ops....that doesn't seem very smart at all.
World naval Review 2019 has a very good description of the design evolution of the QE's

basically they were originally planned to have, in the Alpha iteration, with a conventional CATOBAR system. This was turned out to be a 73000 ++ ton hi-spec ship that was un-affordable

They then went to a "Flexible design" for Cats etc but by the time they 'd gone down to Bravo (55 ,000) and (via Charlie) back up to Delta (65,000) tonnes costs were up all over and the US had decided to go to the (unproven) EMALS system - which was required a lot more conversion work (and cost) than the original CATOBAR conversion. The RN also didn't fancy developing their own CATOBAR system from scratch (god forbid they'd buy one from France - what would BAe do for profits?) so really they defaulted to what they knew - STOVL. They were lucky there was version of the F-35 available otherwise it would probably have had to have been EMALS but only one ship.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 10:35
  #5374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Spending Millions designing Cats.....dear boy they already exist in many forms.

Build them under license.....there....problem sorted. Same for the arresting gear.

Then you could operate F-35's, F-18's, COD's, Carrier AWACS Aircraft, UAV's.....aircraff from many NATO nations.

Lots more parking room for aircraft as well....then you could carry more than a half squadron.

But what price flexibility and capability.....when it really doesn't matter as your Carrier is not meant to be used anyway.

:-) Trust me these are designed to carry much more than 1/2 squadron, and they really should never deploy with 6 F35s! They are designed for 36, with surge capability for more at a very high sortie rate. If only we could afford the aircraft and have the RAF allow the planes to deploy to sea.

The bottom up design is facinating. Start from the target sortie rate and design the ships around that. I thik the USN were hoping to learn from the experience, but lack of aircarft may dilute the learnings.
PeterGee is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 10:42
  #5375 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
W The RN also didn't fancy developing their own CATOBAR system from scratch (god forbid they'd buy one from France - what would BAe do for profits?) so really they defaulted to what they knew - STOVL. They were lucky there was version of the F-35 available otherwise it would probably have had to have been EMALS but only one ship.
Not sure this is very true. Had F35 been canned there would definately have been an issue. But the carriers were designed around F35B. Asice fromit not been cancelled, there was no luck around F35B.

The French do not have an EM Catapult. The choice, when Cats and traps was being considered, was complete development of the UK system, or buy EMALS. The cost of conversion of one carrier was almost £2 billion so was canned. I am also led to belive that within both the RN and RAF there was a preference for the B as it allows better sharing of resources. (People and equipment - Had we gone Cats, maintining carrier quals would have led to a smaller ship focussed capability.)
PeterGee is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 10:52
  #5376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 52
Originally Posted by Onceapilot View Post
Well PeterGee "someone who has spent time at sea". Care to say if RN? Strange, quite a few pro-carrier posters here seem to be somewhat coy. Oh yes, please do not feel free to define if I will or won't change my opinions! Likewise, spouting "If you donít get the need to be flexible and the importance of air power at sea, I guess you will never see the value of the trade off." is an insult to me so, desist!

OAP
Of course course RN and very proud. Not sure why that would be condidered anything to hide.

I find your response fairly odd. I am not sure I am up for some kind of internet spat! If someone does not see the value of banannas and therefore does not buy banannas, I really not sure observing that should be considered an insult.

Seems simple to me. You do not seem to see the value of air power at sea, so woud prefer the UK to spend its limited defence £s on land based air power. I happen to feel that flexible air power that can be used from land or sea as the nation needs, is a much better use of our limited budget. The range and payload tradeoff to allow the aircraft to operate at sea is a good tradeoff. So we have different opinions, so what!
PeterGee is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 14:50
  #5377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 1,526
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
World naval Review 2019 has a very good description of the design evolution of the QE's

basically they were originally planned to have, in the Alpha iteration, with a conventional CATOBAR system. This was turned out to be a 73000 ++ ton hi-spec ship that was un-affordable

They then went to a "Flexible design" for Cats etc but by the time they 'd gone down to Bravo (55 ,000) and (via Charlie) back up to Delta (65,000) tonnes costs were up all over and the US had decided to go to the (unproven) EMALS system - which was required a lot more conversion work (and cost) than the original CATOBAR conversion. The RN also didn't fancy developing their own CATOBAR system from scratch (god forbid they'd buy one from France - what would BAe do for profits?) so really they defaulted to what they knew - STOVL. They were lucky there was version of the F-35 available otherwise it would probably have had to have been EMALS but only one ship.
I'm afraid virtually all of that description is somewhat wide of the mark. There were A, B, C & D versions of the design. As I recall, all were done with a STOVL and CTOL arrangement (CATOBAR is a made up acronym). As for French systems I think you'll find they use an FMS supplied C13-3 system from the US and Mk7 Mod4 arrester gear.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:05
  #5378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 513
World naval Review - which seems pretty well sourced over the years - indicate versions A, B ,C & D were evolutionary. You seem to indicate they were all worked on in parallel

Can you confirm?

PS All Acronyms are made up in my experience -
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:06
  #5379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,501
In the beginning was STOVL.

That was the U.K. ticket into JSF, which was going to be as cheap as chips, rule the skies and take over the one-superpower world.

Nobody said a word about cat-arrest until 2003 (before the F-35B packed on a couple of extra tons) when it was briefly considered as the ship design was being finalized (and when the French were involved with PA2) and then nothing was said until 2010.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 15:52
  #5380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
I still fail to see why the Ski Ramp deck....when the ships are large enough for standard Cat Launches.

All the Ski Ramp does is prevent standard carrier ops....that doesn't seem very smart at all.
*It isn't you are 100% on the money.

Speaking of which*, see BAe land have sold out 55% to Rheinmetall, funny old world isn't it........
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.