Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Surely the biggest headache for the British Navy will be that to maintain " an agile, well-defended carrier task group" they're going to have to concentrate a very large portion of the whole fighting fleet around each carrier - or depend on other nations to help out.
This may well work in Small Wars but if it comes to peer-to-peer or even near-per conflicts it may be impossible to get the assistance from your friends as they will have their own interests to look after
This may well work in Small Wars but if it comes to peer-to-peer or even near-per conflicts it may be impossible to get the assistance from your friends as they will have their own interests to look after
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the biggest headache for the British Navy will be that to maintain " an agile, well-defended carrier task group" they're going to have to concentrate a very large portion of the whole fighting fleet around each carrier - or depend on other nations to help out.
This may well work in Small Wars but if it comes to peer-to-peer or even near-per conflicts it may be impossible to get the assistance from your friends as they will have their own interests to look after
This may well work in Small Wars but if it comes to peer-to-peer or even near-per conflicts it may be impossible to get the assistance from your friends as they will have their own interests to look after
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of which is super but doesn't excuse the comparatively meager fit of ship borne defensive weaponry.
hint: what is the first thing you remove or otherwise neutralise as an attacker?
hint: what is the first thing you remove or otherwise neutralise as an attacker?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I understand....the ski jump prevents French aircraft from landing on the two carriers by mistake.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
weemonkey,
At the height of the Cold War, HMS Ark Royal, the Phantom/Buccaneer/Sea King version, then being described as "the most powerful surface warship the RN has ever had, was armed with two saluting cannon and NOTHING else. Put alongside that the two new carriers look quite heavily armed with Phalanx, 30mm cannon and a plethora of MIniguns, .50 cal and GPMG's.
At the height of the Cold War, HMS Ark Royal, the Phantom/Buccaneer/Sea King version, then being described as "the most powerful surface warship the RN has ever had, was armed with two saluting cannon and NOTHING else. Put alongside that the two new carriers look quite heavily armed with Phalanx, 30mm cannon and a plethora of MIniguns, .50 cal and GPMG's.
Don't forget the Very Pistol.....and the Head Overboard drains.
Thread Starter
Going back to the task group issue, it seems that some people do not understand that the size and composition depends on the task and the scenario - a carrier does not need a big 'set piece' task group in peacetime, although exercising as a task group benefits ships of all types and sizes. Low threat environments also do not require a massive level of escorting.
Defence in depth of a task group, in either anti air or ASW scenarios require carrier aircraft AND frigates/destroyers. The carrier is not the only high value unit. Sometimes the carrier will be providing defence for amphibious vessels or logistics shipping, maybe something like a small force hunting for mines that lack their own defences.
Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is. Everyone expected a manpower uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 15, but Cameron fudged it. We could really do with 1500 extra people.
Moving onto carrier armament, US carriers have Sea Sparrow. FS Charles De Gaulle has Aster 15. However, things have gone very badly wrong if a carrier is firing anti air missiles, and there are real FOD issues (missile efflux is very hot and fast and will do the flight deck and aircraft no good). When HMS Ocean (LPH) was brought into service in 1999 I wondered why she was not fitted with Sea Wolf, likewise the LPDs Albion and Bulwark. I even started a thread in 2003 about HMS Albion and her lack of a missile system. I suspect that apart from the cost, it is to try to dissuade the bean counters and politicians from cutting frigate and destroyer numbers even more, or trying to use a capital ship for a frigate/destroyer role. It could be argued there is historical justification for this. During the Korean War one of the RN carriers did a bit of shore bombardment with her 4.7" guns.
The old Invincible class was designed and built with Sea Dart, which did make sense in her likely wartime employment in the GIUK gap and facing very large Soviet missiles. I do wonder if the Sea Dart installation was planned before Sea Harrier was in the pipeline, when the design was for carrying up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The launchers took up valuable deck space, as did the two 909 radars, and the magazine and other equipment also took up room. It was removed in the nineties so that more aircraft could be carried.
In terms of CIWS, small calibre guns (30mm computer controlled ones in our case), and 7.62mm/0.50 Cal weapons, the Queen Elizabeth class is about the same as US counterparts.
Defence in depth of a task group, in either anti air or ASW scenarios require carrier aircraft AND frigates/destroyers. The carrier is not the only high value unit. Sometimes the carrier will be providing defence for amphibious vessels or logistics shipping, maybe something like a small force hunting for mines that lack their own defences.
Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is. Everyone expected a manpower uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 15, but Cameron fudged it. We could really do with 1500 extra people.
Moving onto carrier armament, US carriers have Sea Sparrow. FS Charles De Gaulle has Aster 15. However, things have gone very badly wrong if a carrier is firing anti air missiles, and there are real FOD issues (missile efflux is very hot and fast and will do the flight deck and aircraft no good). When HMS Ocean (LPH) was brought into service in 1999 I wondered why she was not fitted with Sea Wolf, likewise the LPDs Albion and Bulwark. I even started a thread in 2003 about HMS Albion and her lack of a missile system. I suspect that apart from the cost, it is to try to dissuade the bean counters and politicians from cutting frigate and destroyer numbers even more, or trying to use a capital ship for a frigate/destroyer role. It could be argued there is historical justification for this. During the Korean War one of the RN carriers did a bit of shore bombardment with her 4.7" guns.
The old Invincible class was designed and built with Sea Dart, which did make sense in her likely wartime employment in the GIUK gap and facing very large Soviet missiles. I do wonder if the Sea Dart installation was planned before Sea Harrier was in the pipeline, when the design was for carrying up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The launchers took up valuable deck space, as did the two 909 radars, and the magazine and other equipment also took up room. It was removed in the nineties so that more aircraft could be carried.
In terms of CIWS, small calibre guns (30mm computer controlled ones in our case), and 7.62mm/0.50 Cal weapons, the Queen Elizabeth class is about the same as US counterparts.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the task group issue, it seems that some people do not understand that the size and composition depends on the task and the scenario - a carrier does not need a big 'set piece' task group in peacetime, although exercising as a task group benefits ships of all types and sizes. Low threat environments also do not require a massive level of escorting.
Defence in depth of a task group, in either anti air or ASW scenarios require carrier aircraft AND frigates/destroyers. The carrier is not the only high value unit. Sometimes the carrier will be providing defence for amphibious vessels or logistics shipping, maybe something like a small force hunting for mines that lack their own defences.
Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is. Everyone expected a manpower uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 15, but Cameron fudged it. We could really do with 1500 extra people.
Moving onto carrier armament, US carriers have Sea Sparrow. FS Charles De Gaulle has Aster 15. However, things have gone very badly wrong if a carrier is firing anti air missiles, and there are real FOD issues (missile efflux is very hot and fast and will do the flight deck and aircraft no good). When HMS Ocean (LPH) was brought into service in 1999 I wondered why she was not fitted with Sea Wolf, likewise the LPDs Albion and Bulwark. I even started a thread in 2003 about HMS Albion and her lack of a missile system. I suspect that apart from the cost, it is to try to dissuade the bean counters and politicians from cutting frigate and destroyer numbers even more, or trying to use a capital ship for a frigate/destroyer role. It could be argued there is historical justification for this. During the Korean War one of the RN carriers did a bit of shore bombardment with her 4.7" guns.
The old Invincible class was designed and built with Sea Dart, which did make sense in her likely wartime employment in the GIUK gap and facing very large Soviet missiles. I do wonder if the Sea Dart installation was planned before Sea Harrier was in the pipeline, when the design was for carrying up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The launchers took up valuable deck space, as did the two 909 radars, and the magazine and other equipment also took up room. It was removed in the nineties so that more aircraft could be carried.
In terms of CIWS, small calibre guns (30mm computer controlled ones in our case), and 7.62mm/0.50 Cal weapons, the Queen Elizabeth class is about the same as US counterparts.
Defence in depth of a task group, in either anti air or ASW scenarios require carrier aircraft AND frigates/destroyers. The carrier is not the only high value unit. Sometimes the carrier will be providing defence for amphibious vessels or logistics shipping, maybe something like a small force hunting for mines that lack their own defences.
Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is. Everyone expected a manpower uplift of 1500 or so bods as part of SDSR 15, but Cameron fudged it. We could really do with 1500 extra people.
Moving onto carrier armament, US carriers have Sea Sparrow. FS Charles De Gaulle has Aster 15. However, things have gone very badly wrong if a carrier is firing anti air missiles, and there are real FOD issues (missile efflux is very hot and fast and will do the flight deck and aircraft no good). When HMS Ocean (LPH) was brought into service in 1999 I wondered why she was not fitted with Sea Wolf, likewise the LPDs Albion and Bulwark. I even started a thread in 2003 about HMS Albion and her lack of a missile system. I suspect that apart from the cost, it is to try to dissuade the bean counters and politicians from cutting frigate and destroyer numbers even more, or trying to use a capital ship for a frigate/destroyer role. It could be argued there is historical justification for this. During the Korean War one of the RN carriers did a bit of shore bombardment with her 4.7" guns.
The old Invincible class was designed and built with Sea Dart, which did make sense in her likely wartime employment in the GIUK gap and facing very large Soviet missiles. I do wonder if the Sea Dart installation was planned before Sea Harrier was in the pipeline, when the design was for carrying up to ten ASW Sea Kings. The launchers took up valuable deck space, as did the two 909 radars, and the magazine and other equipment also took up room. It was removed in the nineties so that more aircraft could be carried.
In terms of CIWS, small calibre guns (30mm computer controlled ones in our case), and 7.62mm/0.50 Cal weapons, the Queen Elizabeth class is about the same as US counterparts.
"Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is."
I agree that lack of man power seems to be a very pressing issue and one that no-one seems to be able to fix. However that could, if necessary, be done quite quickly with more money . The medium/long term issue is a lack of ships - 6 SSN's, 6 T45 13 T23's . If 30% are in refit (which is the standard rule of thumb) that's a very thin line you have - it would be a brave man who went into action without allied support IMHO
I agree that lack of man power seems to be a very pressing issue and one that no-one seems to be able to fix. However that could, if necessary, be done quite quickly with more money . The medium/long term issue is a lack of ships - 6 SSN's, 6 T45 13 T23's . If 30% are in refit (which is the standard rule of thumb) that's a very thin line you have - it would be a brave man who went into action without allied support IMHO
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Lack of ships is not the Royal Navy's big issue, lack of people is."
I agree that lack of man power seems to be a very pressing issue and one that no-one seems to be able to fix. However that could, if necessary, be done quite quickly with more money . The medium/long term issue is a lack of ships - 6 SSN's, 6 T45 13 T23's . If 30% are in refit (which is the standard rule of thumb) that's a very thin line you have - it would be a brave man who went into action without allied support IMHO
I agree that lack of man power seems to be a very pressing issue and one that no-one seems to be able to fix. However that could, if necessary, be done quite quickly with more money . The medium/long term issue is a lack of ships - 6 SSN's, 6 T45 13 T23's . If 30% are in refit (which is the standard rule of thumb) that's a very thin line you have - it would be a brave man who went into action without allied support IMHO
it would be a brave man who went into action without allied support IMHO
Someone better tell the good people of Port Stanley... and maybe Gibraltar then..............
things have gone very badly wrong if a carrier is firing anti air missiles
Think Hood, Singapore, daylight bombing, attacking with armor up a single roadway over multiple bridges, and so many other tragedies!
Going into a fight with just your Willy in hand.....is not a smart thing.
Arm them up....as you cannot afford to lose even one of them.....as your carrier fleet takes a 50% Loss.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK has form...
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts