Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Of whichever nation the pioneers of wheeled naval aviation were brave men. Thankfully a century later it has finally become relatively safe.
As you say, SASLess, Eugene Ely performed the first take off from the stationary USS Birmingham 14 November 1910, and the first landing on the stationary USS Pensylvania 18 Jan 1911 (this was also the first use of a tailhook); he was killed in a display flying acccident on 19 October 1911.
On 9 May 1912 Commander Charles Samson RN (Later Air Commodore RAF) performed the first the take of from a moving ship, HMS Hibernia which was steaming at 15 knots.
On 2 August 1917 Squadron Commander Edwin Dunning RNAS performed the first landing on a moving ship (the then split deck carrier, HMS Furious), he was killed five days later when attempting another landing.
HMS Argus (1918) was the first full length flat top having been converted from an Italian liner.
As your linked article mentions efforts during WW1 involving shipborne aviation were somewhat experimental with seaplanes being the dominant participants. Landing on was the real problem, the pilots of the aircraft launched by HMS Furious for the Todern raid on 19 July 1918 were expected to ditch alongside on their return, however several headed for a Danish airfield as their fuel was too low to make it back to the ships.
Probably because of later events, the IJN's pioneering activities in naval aviation are often overlooked: at the siege of Tsingtao (Japan and Britain v Germany & Austria-Hungary) having already conducted the first sea launched air action against land forces; on 6 September 1914 aircraft the seaplane carrier Wakamiya launched the first attempt to sink an opposing warship by bombing. in December 1922, Hōshō was the first purpose built aircraft carrier to be commissioned.
Here endeth the lesson...
As you say, SASLess, Eugene Ely performed the first take off from the stationary USS Birmingham 14 November 1910, and the first landing on the stationary USS Pensylvania 18 Jan 1911 (this was also the first use of a tailhook); he was killed in a display flying acccident on 19 October 1911.
On 9 May 1912 Commander Charles Samson RN (Later Air Commodore RAF) performed the first the take of from a moving ship, HMS Hibernia which was steaming at 15 knots.
On 2 August 1917 Squadron Commander Edwin Dunning RNAS performed the first landing on a moving ship (the then split deck carrier, HMS Furious), he was killed five days later when attempting another landing.
HMS Argus (1918) was the first full length flat top having been converted from an Italian liner.
As your linked article mentions efforts during WW1 involving shipborne aviation were somewhat experimental with seaplanes being the dominant participants. Landing on was the real problem, the pilots of the aircraft launched by HMS Furious for the Todern raid on 19 July 1918 were expected to ditch alongside on their return, however several headed for a Danish airfield as their fuel was too low to make it back to the ships.
Probably because of later events, the IJN's pioneering activities in naval aviation are often overlooked: at the siege of Tsingtao (Japan and Britain v Germany & Austria-Hungary) having already conducted the first sea launched air action against land forces; on 6 September 1914 aircraft the seaplane carrier Wakamiya launched the first attempt to sink an opposing warship by bombing. in December 1922, Hōshō was the first purpose built aircraft carrier to be commissioned.
Here endeth the lesson...
Last edited by SLXOwft; 12th Jul 2021 at 10:36. Reason: Correcting the century
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Somewhere flat
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Covid on board Q.E.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57830617
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."
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."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.”
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.”
Lots of warm water in the Pacific.....just saying!
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.
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.....
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.
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.
Should soon see some interesting video as SRVL replaces vertical as the normal F-35B landing technique.
"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
Not all needs are predictable in advance as you are quite aware
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.
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.