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 17th Nov 2020, 16:42
  #6021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Boffin - as we all know and the RN are happy to keep telling us all RN and RFA vessels not in overhaul or training are deployed on a wide variety of missions in an enormous variety of locations.

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...ity/operations currently lists the areas and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-activity/news lists latest news which covers vessels in Arctic, S Georgia, the West Indies, the Gulf, the Med , E Scotland.......................

These are almost all single ship deployments and presumably are considered important to the national security no?

The RN has no spare ships sitting around - therefore if you form a Carrier Task Force with 2 x T45's, 2 x T23's and 2 RFA's those vessels are no longer available to cover the areas were they are currently deployed - you have a great deal of force , but you only have it in one location. Those escorts are protecting a carrier in the N Atlantic - they can't be in the Gulf at the same time, nor in the Med... the argument about the RN carriers is not that they're not nice to have but that in a Navy which was stretched to breaking point before their arrival something which we currently feel is necessary has to give to protect them.
Arctic - HMS Lancaster
S Georgia - HMS Forth (long-term deployment)
Med - HMS Trent
Gulf - HMS Montrose (long-term deployment)
Caribbean - RFA Argus

Of those, only two might be considered TG ships. There are also another T23 and a T45 in the Med off to support Albion & Lyme Bay on LRG. All done while 2 T45 and 5 T23 are in long refits / conversions (something that is a one off due to convergence of two programmes and will get a bit better). Just after a month long CSG exercise, which was just after another couple of Arctic deployments. It's definitely not easy, but it demonstrably possible.

The other thing about single ship deployments is that you can choose whether or not to do them permanently or periodically. It's called flexibility.

Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 17th Nov 2020, 21:28
  #6022 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,564
I was going to reply to A56, and point out that those 75 years have included carrier operations as part of the Cold War from 1945 until 1992(?), Korea, Malaya, Suez, the Borneo Confrontation, Middle East and African entanglements, deterring an invasion of Belize in 1972, Gulf War related activities, Bosnia, Kosovo, keeping Saddam in his box, Sierra Leone, and renewed NATO naval activities.

I was going to point out that naval forces, like all forces, do not just cease to have a useful role when not on live operations. They deter, reassure, and influence. A carrier group will often do that in the same way that amphibious forces exercised in the Baltic and near Arctic waters earlier this year, and now they are in the Mediterranean. Likewise carriers will be a part of NATO operations and exercises.

I was going to point out that a task group can cover a large area, and the ships in it will often be detached for other things - just as ships being detached from the main task group in the Falklands to conduct naval gunfire support, support Special Forces, or do localised ASW with a couple of frigates and ASW Sea Kings from the carriers.

Instead, I will just post something you might find informative:

British Uses of Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Ships: 1945 - 2010





WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 07:11
  #6023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,759
Boffin - I agree they will have to change their priorities - otherwise they can't support the carriers. My point is that the roles which will be downgraded are also critical to the national defence. So you protect the carriers and can exercise a great deal of power over a small area or you can disperse the escorts and cover more areas of concern........ The argument between us is which is more important .

WEBF - A carrier force operating in the N Atlantic cannot "deter, reassure, and influence" actions in the Gulf today, tomorrow or even next month - sure they look good but if Iran snaffles anther UK tanker in the Straits of Hormuz tomorrow what is an RN carrier group several thousand miles away going to do? Yes you can send the Carrier Group to the Gulf - but a bit like the Russian Navy on its way to Tsushima it takes along time and they have a lot of time to be ready for you.

This argument has raged over 14 years 300 pages and TBH we''re nowhere near agreeing

The naysayers argument is summed up in post #5 by Occasional Aviator-

"Not meaning to troll, but what capability will CVF/JSF Really give us? As I understand it, we are only ordering 2. Now, the Yanks can afford to have a carrier battle group on station permanently covering pretty much every likely trouble spot, but with only one to position we will either have to be prescient or we will be projecting our air power at fast walking pace"
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 08:09
  #6024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Boffin - I agree they will have to change their priorities - otherwise they can't support the carriers. My point is that the roles which will be downgraded are also critical to the national defence. So you protect the carriers and can exercise a great deal of power over a small area or you can disperse the escorts and cover more areas of concern........ The argument between us is which is more important .
Is there a part of the list of the tasks you highlighted, not involving task group ships that you didn't understand?
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 11:14
  #6025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,759
Is that a double negative? I understand that we (or rather HMG) have to choose - that means changing the current list of priorities

Protecting the Carriers will be considered more important than some of the tasks currently carried out by the RN - we gain a concentrated battle force at the cost of a presence (s) somewhere else - agreed?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 11:58
  #6026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Is that a double negative? I understand that we (or rather HMG) have to choose - that means changing the current list of priorities

Protecting the Carriers will be considered more important than some of the tasks currently carried out by the RN - we gain a concentrated battle force at the cost of a presence (s) somewhere else - agreed?
The single ship deployment examples you quoted as national security priorities were all filled by ships that would not normally be on the TG deployment. You're now trying to give that a stiff ignoring and invent a list of non-specified tasks that would hypothetically be backheeled to allow a CSG deployment.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 12:29
  #6027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,759
Boffin

I didn't post a full list of deployments but you know we have at least one escort, a tanker and an RFA support vessel in the Gulf normally for example.......

I can't understand why you won't admit the point that a Carrier Group means we're doing less elsewhere. I agree that a CG is a strong force which we haven't had for a decade - but it comes at an operational cost.

The question is is it worth it - and on that we clearly differ - no doubt time will tell.
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2020, 12:56
  #6028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
Boffin

I didn't post a full list of deployments but you know we have at least one escort, a tanker and an RFA support vessel in the Gulf normally for example.......
That'll be HMS Montrose - noted as long-term deployment out there. Plus one Bay class and 3-4MCMV, none of which are task group ships. Tanker less critical now we have HMS Jufair. Wave Ruler was out there for six months earlier in the year, one of six and a half tankers. Plus we currently have a Littoral Response Group (two amphibs and two escorts joining) in the Med.

Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
I can't understand why you won't admit the point that a Carrier Group means we're doing less elsewhere. I agree that a CG is a strong force which we haven't had for a decade - but it comes at an operational cost.
Because the "evidence" appears to be solely based on your opinion.

I repeat - if only those who claim to have "flagged" this understood what they were talking about.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 20th Nov 2020, 07:45
  #6029 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,564
The Future Navy concept is based around five areas of operational output

Continuous At Sea Deterrence
Forward Presence
North Atlantic
Carrier Strike
Future Commando/Amphibious Force

These overlap of course - in particular the last three. The carriers will routinely carry Royal Marines and can be used as an LPH, and the carriers are suited to Atlantic operations and providing ASW and air defence for a task group or crisis response shipping. On that note:

WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 20th Nov 2020, 09:38
  #6030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,759
ORAC posted this on the Strategic Review thread this morning:-

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/n...pree-7p9knnpvm

Navy is big winner in Johnson’s £16bn defence spending spree

......The biggest winner will be the Royal Navy after the prime minister set out plans for the service to take on a bigger role. He confirmed that Britain will get eight Type-26 frigates, sophisticated anti-submarine ships, as well as five Type-31 frigates, which are cheaper all-purpose warships. New fleet support ships to carry food and ammunition in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary will also be built, along with multi-role research vessels. The various projects confirmed will be a boon to shipbuilders and are expected to support up to 10,000 jobs.

The blueprint will be a boost to the Union too as Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have a significant proportion of the UK’s shipyards and linked industries. The government said that the blueprint would secure “jobs, prosperity, security and the Union”.

Mr Johnson said that the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth would be launched on its first carrier strike force operation next year, and will sail to the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and east Asia. HMS Prince of Wales is up to 18 months behind in its timetable. In a sign that Britain will seek to boost international co-operation, Australian and Canadian personnel and assets are expected to be invited to operate from one of the carriers. Proposals are being considered for one of the carriers to be permanently stationed either in the Middle East or further east in the southern hemisphere, it is understood. A military source said that the focus on the Royal Navy was “a paradigm shift”, adding: “Boris Johnson has refocused defence to its historic maritime axis.”.....
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2020, 13:00
  #6031 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 287
NavalNews has been doing some digging on the Type 32.

the real surprise in today’s announcement is the mention for the first time of the “Type 32”. Early rumors associated the term with an export variant of Type 31, T4X (Type 45 destroyer replacement), the Littoral Strike Ship project (which appears to be abandoned) or even a typo. Naval News learned from a reliable UK source that this is in fact some sort of “pre program” put in place for budgetary reasons in anticipation of a future potential “Type 31 Batch 2”. The source added that this potential “Type 31 Batch 2” may not necessarily be based on the Type 31 design.
Is this what happened to the illusory T31s in the 'at least' five?

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...aritime-force/

One asumes if there are to be extra escort vessels this means extra helicopters or RPVs to extend their sensor and weapons range. Also will need to magic up find crews and aircrews from somewhere,

Regarding a base port for a CV, HMG has invested a modest £23.8 million to "triple the size of its base" at Duqm, Oman - the port even has a drydock which could take QNLZ or POW. Granted, it is rather close to Iran.

Still, I am old fashioned and consider the RN to have only 2/3s of a carrier capability. So permanently basing one East of Suez seems a tad over ambitious. They then also have to address airgroup numbers as well if the other is to be operable from the UK when one is not in refit or on workup. There was a reason for planning to keep two old carriers in service as well if CVA-01 and 02 had actually been built.

If Singapore will HMS Simbang (RNAS Sembawang) be resurrected for shore support of aircraft? If Oman where, RAFO Masirah is close to Duqm but RAFO Adam might make more sense
SLXOwft is online now  
Old 20th Nov 2020, 18:38
  #6032 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,564
We are not going to permanently base a carrier in Oman or Singapore. There is talk of forward basing an asset in Singapore, probably an OPV, and some media types have jumped to wild conclusions. Neither Canada or Australia currently operate V/STOL aircraft, however there is an agreement within NATO and some non NATO partners to allow for naval helicopter interoperability.

Do you think there there is any significance in the map in the Twitter update above?

Will the build up of the RN/RAF F-35B force be speeded up?

Will there be an increase in Merlin HM2 numbers?

Following on from that, you may be interested in this transcript of a NATO conference in 1956. Vice Admiral Clifford RN notes that the key development in ASW aircraft was the helicopter with dipping sonar and homing torpedoes, which were carrier based, and a few years later frigate/destroyer based aircraft such as the Wasp.

I remember seeing a promotional film from the seventies that stated that a frigate and her Wasp could work in conjunction with a Sea King (from a carrier or larger RFA). Today the same could be said for frigates and destroyers operating Wildcat - they could work in conjunction with dipping Merlins. The carrier controls all task group aircraft, and contributes to the effectiveness of other units, like the potential use of data from F-35B to cue ships' weapons.

The limitations of the carriers the RN back then were understood, which is why the new carriers were intended to be larger. However, instead of building a strong case built around convoy defence in the Atlantic, fending off mass submarine attacks and long range aircraft in the GIUK gap, and amphibious operations as part of NATO, the case for new carriers was vague and based on a possible Far East crisis. As such it could be dismantled. Forgetting that whilst the nature of future crises is hard to predict, our national interests, such as securing the Atlantic Sea Lines of Communication will not.

We can expect carrier based task groups to perform these exercises as part of NATO, naval operations that are the peacetime conjugate of war. We can also expect them to contribute to humanitarian aid and disaster relief, for which a large deck and multiple helicopters can get aid where it is needed, like the current role being played by RFA Argus, operating three Merlin HC4 and a Wildcat HM2 as well as lilypadding American helicopters.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Nov 2020 at 08:23.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2020, 08:21
  #6033 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,564
I was expecting there to be a NATO exercise this year that involved simulating a transatlantic convoy, but I must have missed it when it took place in February. Mea culpa!

USS Eisenhower Leads Exercise To Clear Atlantic Shipping Lanes

PENTAGON: Since its surprise deployment last week, the USS Eisenhower has been clearing a path for cargo ships full of Army equipment bound for major ground exercise in Europe, the first drill simulating a contested crossing of the Atlantic since 1986, Navy officials say.

The Ike, along with an unidentified submarine sweeping the depths of the ocean for unexpected Russian guests, is participating in an exercise that will throw simulated attacks at the convoy to stress test how prepared the Navy is to punch its way across the Atlantic. The path is being cleared for the roll-on/roll-off USNS Benavidez, along with US-flagged merchant vessels MV Resolve and MV Patriot, which departed Beaumont, Texas Feb. 24 to deliver equipment to the US Army DEFENDER 20 exercise in Europe. The ships are carrying gear for the 1st Armored Division, including Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and other heavy armor.

“The Atlantic has changed dramatically over the last 20 years,” 2nd Fleet’s director of operations, Cmdr. Troy Denison told reporters Friday. “It’s not what it used to be. We treat it as contested waters now.”


I look forward to seeing our carriers taking part in this sort of exercise, or a NATO amphibious exercise.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 26th Nov 2020 at 19:32.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2020, 17:21
  #6034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 287
MoD Minister of State Jeremy Quin replied to a written question from Julian Lewis on Tuesday (24NOV2020)

On current plans, the out-of-service dates for HMS ALBION and HMS BULWARK will remain 2033 and 2034 respectively.
Source: questions-statements.parliament.uk

We will see if the same is true after the delayed review. Is the MoD being 'economical with the actualités' in responding to the chair of the Intelligence and Security committee?
SLXOwft is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2020, 17:26
  #6035 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 93
The important part will be the capability beyond those two - in other words are replacements in the long-term shipbuilding programme? I suspect not.
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2020, 18:52
  #6036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin View Post
The important part will be the capability beyond those two - in other words are replacements in the long-term shipbuilding programme? I suspect not.
And is dependent on agreeing there will be a need to deliver an actually amphibious force. (i.e. not just by helicopter / tiltrotor) of reasonable size. If they are replaced will the lesson that Al Faw "demonstrated the utility of hovercraft in amphibious landings." be implemented with an LCAC-100 size ACV for them to carry? Playing fantasy fleets, the real need would be for two and preferably three Bougainville type LHAs but as the cost would be close to that for another two of our medium size aircraft carriers it's not going to happen. The running costs of the Albion class is its Achilles Heel and will have to be addressed if there is a replacement. Call me a fool but two landing spots and no hangar doesn't make sense to me - a San Antonio style ship would have made much more sense but @6 times the cost of an Albion not in the UK's reach. Did they not think much beyond a Fearless-alike?

Last edited by SLXOwft; 1st Dec 2020 at 13:28. Reason: Belated proof read
SLXOwft is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2020, 06:47
  #6037 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,296
ORAC is online now  
Old 1st Dec 2020, 18:14
  #6038 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,564
SLXOwft

I think the big thing is the commitment to maintaining an amphibious capability. A number of NATO countries have significant amphibious capabilities, in the same way that France, Italy, and Spain also have carriers.

HMS Albion has been working with the Italian ITS
Giuseppe Garibaldi - and her Harriers.

The Garibaldi is home to AV-8B jump jets (the US-built version of the Harrier) which tested their ability to evade the British defences during an air defence exercise.

The carrier group – completed by frigate ITS Carlo Bergamini and tanker Stromboli – conducted combined training with Albion and Lyme Bay, from basic communications through to manoeuvring in close proximity, some helicopter ‘cross-decking’ and an anti-submarine exercise, before a ceremonial sail past prior as the two allies went their separate way

Does the Italian Navy have carrierborne ASW helicopters?

ORAC

Will the RN be getting a manpower uplift - as Dodgy Dave promised in 2015 and then reneged on?

Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theatre:

Another major NATO ASW exercise took image in the Atlantic not so long ago. The USS Wasp was the big deck with two squadrons of MH-60R operating from her deck.

While the exercise includes systems testing, Cardle pointed out that Black Widow also allows the Navy to do command and control testing now that Waters has platforms under his purview that would typically fall under a carrier strike group.

“Part of Black Widow and what makes it different . . . is we are not only testing new capabilities — which means the actual gadgets, devices, sensors, those types of things — along with tactics, techniques and procedures that undersea warfare development center is trying to test,” Caudle said. “But we’re also testing that command and control structure and making sure that Jim Waters can actually bring those forces to bear on the scenario under the command of Admiral Lewis.”

The exercise features one Los Angeles-class submarine, one Virginia-class submarine, destroyers USS McFaul (DDG-74) and USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) and amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1), according to the service.

Helicopters from the “Grandmasters” Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 46, the “Proud Warriors” of HSM 72 and aircraft assigned to Patrol and Reconnaissance Wing (CPRW) 11 are also participating.


Looking ahead:

Planning is underway for another transatlantic reinforcement exercise nest year.

Having achieved initial operational capability in September 2020 and programmed to reach full operational capability (FOC) at the end of 2021, JFC Norfolk is taking on a core-coordinating role in assuring the security of the Strategic Lines of Communication across the Euro-Atlantic area, through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap and into the Arctic.

---BREAK---

Exercise Steadfast Defender (STDE21) will be a significant milestone in achieving FOC, demonstrating JFC Norfolk’s competence and readiness to fulfil its roles and responsibilities.

As a SHAPE-sponsored operational and tactical level live exercise, STDE21 will train and evaluate a wide range of NATO and national force elements. Focused on the reinforcement of continental Europe from North America, NATO will exercise its ability to secure the Strategic Lines of Communication which link our continents.

Atlantic ASW and AAW depend on carrier centred task groups. Before you ask - yes, I have reposted this to fix links and add quotes.

Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 1st Dec 2020 at 22:23.
WE Branch Fanatic is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 16:30
  #6039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 287
The Telegraph reported recently that as part of £1bn defence 'savings' £2 million will be saved by not sending HMS Prince of Wales to America next year for essential training as part of the Westlant Exercise.

Instead similar training will now take place in British waters.

Also "Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, has signed off on the Royal Naval Reservists being stood down until April next year in a bid to save £7.5 million."


Amusingly the version of the report I have seen (I refuse to add to the Barclay brother's coffers) states that the E-3D force will be reduced to 3 - I thought it already effectively was 3 - and that they will all be out of service before the first Wedgetail arrrives leading to yet another capability holiday.
SLXOwft is online now  
Old 10th Dec 2020, 18:04
  #6040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 821
..The Telegraph reported recently that as part of £1bn defence 'savings' £2 million will be saved by not sending HMS Prince of Wales to America next year for essential training as part of the Westlant Exercise.
They'll need all of that saving to repair the damage caused by the engine room leak while tied up in Pompey in October .....

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-39836145.html

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/one...ince-of-wales/

In October .....? ... I didn't see this mentioned previous. Do I need to make more effort to keep up ?

Instead similar training will now take place in British waters
Notice to Mariners - British Waters will only become available for training after they've been pumped out of the POW.

LFH
...

Last edited by Lordflasheart; 11th Dec 2020 at 08:49.
Lordflasheart is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.