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 12th Jul 2021, 11:39
  #6301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 73
Posts: 382
My only memory of Tsingtao is the headache the following morning!

Mog
Mogwi is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2021, 08:39
  #6302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by Mogwi View Post
My only memory of Tsingtao is the headache the following morning!

Mog
Mog, you've clearly been drinking it since the brewery stopped voluntarily following the Reinheitsgebot.

Probably enough thread drift now?
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2021, 07:06
  #6303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere flat
Posts: 132
Covid on board Q.E.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617
goofer3 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2021, 07:07
  #6304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617An outbreak of Covid-19 has been confirmed on the Royal Navy's flagship, HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The BBC has been told there have been around 100 cases on the aircraft carrier, which is part way through a world tour. Several other warships in the fleet accompanying it are also affected. Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said all crew on the deployment had received two doses of a Covid-19 vaccine and the outbreak was being managed. HMS Queen Elizabeth is about a quarter of the way through a 28-week deployment leading the Carrier Strike Group (CSG). It has now entered the Indian Ocean, and the Royal Navy says it is due to continue on its voyage to Japan later this year.

Around 3,700 personnel are part of the CSG. A spokeswoman said mitigation measured on board included masks, social distancing and a track and trace system. "As part of routine testing, a small number of crew from the Carrier Strike Group have tested positive for Covid-19," she said. "The Carrier Strike Group will continue to deliver their operational tasks and there are no effects on the deployment."


Asturias56 is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2021, 16:36
  #6305 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,664
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...tion-8ttzrxnz3

Five of Navy’s six Type 45 destroyers are out of action

Most of the Royal Navy’s destroyers are out of action because they are being fixed or are undergoing maintenance.

Figures released by the Ministry of Defence reveal five out of the six Type 45 warships are tied up in dock, with only HMS Defender operational.

Defender is deployed as part of the carrier strike group led by the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier, which is in the Indo-Pacific as part of its maiden voyage…..

Another destroyer, HMS Diamond, was also escorting the carrier, but had to stay behind as the group travelled through the Suez Canal after suffering “technical issues” related to its propulsion.

In response to a parliamentary question, Jeremy Quin, the procurement minister, said Diamond was in Augusta, in Sicily, undergoing “maintenance, inspection and defect rectification”.

The Type 45s have had long-running problems with their engines, which have struggled to cope in warm waters.

HMS Daring, HMS Duncan and HMS Dragon are undergoing planned maintenance in Portsmouth. Meanwhile, HMS Dauntless is undergoing a “power improvement” upgrade to rectify an issue with the propulsion system that has been deemed unreliable. It is the first destroyer to undergo the upgrade and is expected to return to sea for trials this year…..

All six of the ships, which are equipped with the Sea Viper missiles that can knock moving targets out of the sky from up to 70 miles away, are expected to have been upgraded by the mid-2020s.

Tobias Ellwood, chairman of the defence select committee, said it was “operationally unacceptable for the Royal Navy’s destroyer availability to be reduced to a single ship”. He said that if Defender too suffered propulsion problems the carrier group would be forced to request backup from a Nato ally. “Bottom line — with global threats increasing we need a bigger navy.”

Mark Francois, the former armed forces minister who asked the question, said: “The Type 45 is arguably the best air-defence destroyer in the world — but that’s not much use if it can’t put to sea.”
ORAC is offline  
Old 20th Jul 2021, 21:55
  #6306 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,990
Lots of warm water in the Pacific.....just saying!
SASless is online now  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 07:56
  #6307 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
So down to one destroyer and that's east of Suez.............................

many of us said that they'd never bought enough and that diverting them to build a Carrier Group would lead to chronic issues elsewhere

never realised it would happen so soon

Presumably we're currently dependent on NATO navies to protect the UK in the Atlantic and N Sea?
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 08:38
  #6308 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
So down to one destroyer and that's east of Suez.............................

many of us said that they'd never bought enough and that diverting them to build a Carrier Group would lead to chronic issues elsewhere

never realised it would happen so soon

Presumably we're currently dependent on NATO navies to protect the UK in the Atlantic and N Sea?
If only the "many of you who said" actually understood what you were talking about.....

Of the five that are "out of action", only Daring - and possibly Dauntless - are incapable of putting to sea in relatively short order. Duncan is approaching readiness for handover to FOST. Diamond has a particular defect that is being rectified, which does not prevent her putting to sea if needed.

None of this has anything to do with carrier groups. It may have escaped your notice, but as recently as last month, three of them were all out at sea in various exercises, including the carrier group and the LRG.

The actual reason is that the PIP is taking longer than planned - part of which is down to ILS - nothing to do with carrier groups. But then you knew that anyway didn't you.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 10:07
  #6309 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
the RN has one T45 available today and she is several thousand miles from the UK east of Suez - that's a fact. She's escorting a UK carrier - another fact.

The phrase "relatively short order" isn't exactly comforting. I doubt the Russian hordes are about to take advantage of the situation but it does indicate just how thin we're spreading the RN with all this talk of tweaking the Chinese in their own backyard.

the big issue to me has always been lack of vessels - I've consistently said a Carrier group isn't a bad thing IF you can do it and not impact other needs.

I hope the new frigate builds aren't cut as the T45's were
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 10:17
  #6310 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
the RN has one T45 available today and she is several thousand miles from the UK east of Suez - that's a fact. She's escorting a UK carrier - another fact.

The phrase "relatively short order" isn't exactly comforting. I doubt the Russian hordes are about to take advantage of the situation but it does indicate just how thin we're spreading the RN with all this talk of tweaking the Chinese in their own backyard.

the big issue to me has always been lack of vessels - I've consistently said a Carrier group isn't a bad thing IF you can do it and not impact other needs.

I hope the new frigate builds aren't cut as the T45's were
Gary Google "Fleet Time Support Period". That may help you with some. Then try and understand the temporary impact of the PIP. You might also want to try and explain what you mean by "other needs".

Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 21st Jul 2021, 12:30
  #6311 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,990
NAB,

Having exactly one Ship of a Six Ship Class in Port for any reason that prevents them from being at Sea on Ops is not a good thing.

Scheduled maintenance periods should ensure the Fleet capability is not harmed by yard periods.

Having unreliable Engines in all of them really isn't a good thing with unscheduled repairs and/or modifications impacting operational capability being a very bad thing.

Today's Royal Navy's throw weight has been so reduced it might consider sticking to Fishing Wars where it might have a chance for success.

I am not slighting the Crews....just the Politicians that have seen to make cuts in Defense Spending in exchange for social welfare spending.....something we suffer from as well.

The lack of ability of Nations to rapidly replace losses of aircraft and ships suggests the next major War is going to be short and ugly with a very great risk of going nuclear.

At some point there is bound to be another War....Politicians seem to have a real ability to get us into those situations.

All that has to be done is to look at the World's shared Histories.....seems there's conflict and combat going on somewhere on the Globe all of the time.
SASless is online now  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 00:10
  #6312 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,087
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
NAB,

Having exactly one Ship of a Six Ship Class in Port for any reason that prevents them from being at Sea on Ops is not a good thing.

Scheduled maintenance periods should ensure the Fleet capability is not harmed by yard periods.

Having unreliable Engines in all of them really isn't a good thing with unscheduled repairs and/or modifications impacting operational capability being a very bad thing.

Today's Royal Navy's throw weight has been so reduced it might consider sticking to Fishing Wars where it might have a chance for success.

I am not slighting the Crews....just the Politicians that have seen to make cuts in Defense Spending in exchange for social welfare spending.....something we suffer from as well.

The lack of ability of Nations to rapidly replace losses of aircraft and ships suggests the next major War is going to be short and ugly with a very great risk of going nuclear.

At some point there is bound to be another War....Politicians seem to have a real ability to get us into those situations.

All that has to be done is to look at the World's shared Histories.....seems there's conflict and combat going on somewhere on the Globe all of the time.
Sure seems we are replicating the 'too little, too late' situation that pertained in 1939-40.
The US used to plan on running the military production facilities on a single 8 hour shift in peacetime, with the idea that wartime surge could at least triple output.
The supply chain now has so many single source bottlenecks that such a simple model no longer works. Western military production is becoming a guild craft, rather than an expression of national capability.
Not sure how to fix that.
etudiant is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 08:12
  #6313 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
The situation is reminiscent of Moore's law when he said (I paraphrase) by ?2050? the USA could only afford a single superbly capable fighter - the USAF got it on even days, the USN on on odd days and the USMC on February 29th.

Numbers have a n importance of their own.

If the Suez Canal was blocked again "Defender" is a VERY long way from home

As SAS says its not the crews - its the lack of political will to cough up the cash to provide a force capable of doing what the politicians want it to do
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 08:28
  #6314 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 11,664
Note that the fuss is being made by politicians on the relevant HoC pressuring the government, presumably to ensure adequate funding is maintained for both the engine upgrade programme and the new frigate numbers and timelines.
ORAC is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 08:50
  #6315 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
If the Suez Canal was blocked again "Defender" is a VERY long way from home
And still no explanation of why she would suddenly be needed at "home"at short notice.......or indeed why the Canal would suddenly suffer another blockage, after the first major one in decades.

But anyway - assuming that there was a pressing need to engage M3 cricket balls in home waters at short notice (the Hundred gone badly wrong?), I suspect Diamond could get there quickly enough, or Dragon suspend FTSP.....

Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
As SAS says its not the crews - its the lack of political will to cough up the cash to provide a force capable of doing what the politicians want it to do
To a degree, yes, in that the number of T45 currently in non-Fleet maintenance was caused by short-term measures in the late teens, combined with the PIP. That's actually more to do with short-termism in cashflow, rather than failure to buy enough ships. Something SoS and First/Second are adamant that the Navy fix - and are making good progress in doing so.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 09:51
  #6316 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Raytheon’s Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) has been deployed on the UK Royal Navy’s HMS Queen Elizabeth and Italy’s ITS Cavour, the first aircraft carriers outside of the US Navy to feature the system. (FlightGlobal)

Should soon see some interesting video as SRVL replaces vertical as the normal F-35B landing technique.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 14:33
  #6317 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 3,341
"And still no explanation of why she would suddenly be needed at "home"at short notice"

Not all needs are predictable in advance as you are quite aware
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 16:35
  #6318 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
"And still no explanation of why she would suddenly be needed at "home"at short notice"

Not all needs are predictable in advance as you are quite aware
So you're writing your own requirement that says at least one T45 must be in UK waters and available at R1/R0 at all times, because reasons.
Not_a_boffin is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 17:37
  #6319 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 332
Can't say they weren't warned. Looks like the LORA must have been a tad optimistic. Also the first ships of what is now the Type 26 should have been available to ensure the RN could meet its tasking in the pre-'Boris's Global Navy' 2 active CV days. However, 997 ain't SAMPSON. Presumably Sea Ceptor will potentially affect T45 availability to some extent in the second half of the decade. Decisions taken in the shadow of the 2007-08 crash on the basis of a crystal ball showing the wrong future are too long in the past to be corrected to meet current demands. Don't you love the way networked capability means we don't need as many aircraft or ships because it makes ours invulnerable and theirs easy meat. We can just 'juggle and hope' - with the security of our country and potentially the lives of our service men and women.

HoC PAC report on Type 45 Destroyers - 1 June 2009
Conclusions

The reduction in the number of destroyers to be procured from eight to six means it will be more challenging for the Department to meet its policy requirement of five destroyers available for tasking at any one time. The Department believes that the longer-term support arrangements for the Type 45 will help give it the best chance of meeting this requirement. The Department is already later than planned in putting support arrangements in place. The Department must avoid repeating the early mistakes of the procurement of the destroyers in finalising its support arrangements. It should:
• spend time ensuring that the costs and timescales are realistic and that the commercial arrangements are appropriate to the project;
• put in place effective ways to incentivise industry, linked to the need to have five ships operational at all times,

1 The Type 45 Destroyer Capability
5. The Department is now only procuring half of the 12 ships that it originally planned to when the project was first approved in 2000. The requirement for 12 ships was reduced to eight in 2004 because of changes in the perceived threat, revised planning assumptions, and improvements in network enabled capability, and finally down to six ships in 2008.
The Committee remains deeply concerned that the reduction to six ships will make it very challenging for the Department to meet its operational requirement to have five ships at sea at any one time. This requirement remains unchanged despite the cut in numbers to six. The Department cannot commit to always maintaining this level of availability. It told the Committee that it will be able to maintain four ships at sea, and while there is very high probability of maintaining five, there is a small risk it will not.

6. The Department judges this to be a manageable risk and is looking to mitigate it through the support arrangements it agrees for the ship, through other elements of air defence, and through capabilities on other ships such as the Future Surface Combatant, although the Committee notes this will not enter service until at least 2018. Should only four ships be available, the Department will have to “juggle and hope”. The Navy would adapt its tactics and techniques accordingly to reduce the risk of a successful attack to an absolute minimum.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 22nd Jul 2021, 21:08
  #6320 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 72
Posts: 16,990
Boffin,

Had the buy been eight instead of six....would that have mitigated the current problems by having two additional ships to fill the holes in the Schedule....assuming they could get underway on Ops themselves?
SASless is online now  

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.