Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Kiltrush: Ships DON'T automatically change names with change of ownership. Sometimes a new owner does want to rename his new vessel, but the ship keeps the original name if the owner takes no steps to change it. (Its actually quite complicated and expensive to rename a ship)
and considered unlucky by many
As we change Head of Government on a regular basis and the concept that the country belongs to the People and not the President....we use "United States Ship (USS) for our Navy's ships.
But where we fall down in a way is we often name new ships using historical names from before except in one case which can cause some confusion when discussing that Ship.....except for the USS Constitution which is still commissioned and sailed.
Some are turned into Museums... https://www.navysite.de/specials/museumships.htm
But where we fall down in a way is we often name new ships using historical names from before except in one case which can cause some confusion when discussing that Ship.....except for the USS Constitution which is still commissioned and sailed.
Some are turned into Museums... https://www.navysite.de/specials/museumships.htm
I am not sure that the Ship Names Committee ( or whatever it is these days) has chosen a new name for a Royal Navy warship in donkeys ages. QNLZ was a last a Dreadnought of 1915. POW famously demonstrated that a battleship in hostile water without air cover is in serious dwang.
N
N
Thread Starter
The point of Monarchy is continuity - so no name changes are needed.
I am intrigued about the sudden flurry of name related interest, especially when something like the MARITIME OPERATING CONCEPT - THE MARITIME FORCE CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTEGRATED OPERATING CONCEPT is public, and puts the carriers front and centre. On the topic of Carrier Strike, it said:
• Project decisive air power from a protected maritime task group, including gaining and retaining the necessary degree of sea control to ensure Freedom of Manoeuvre.
Having this in black and white is significant, considering the number of people who think that the carrier will just provide offensive air power against shore targets and that other warships will provide all the air defence and ASW. It also make the point that the carrier's aircraft provide a protective umbrella over a large area in which friendly forces operate, despite the attempts of numpties to claim that it is 'defending the carrier'.
Physics and Maths (and Geography) are involved in answering questions such as:
Why do you want to use aircraft for air defence when you have surface to air missiles?
Why are low frequency towed array sonars more effective than hull mounted ones?
Why are dipping sonars important and why is collocating multiple ASW helicopters useful?
Why does a task group of radar equipped warships need an airborne radar?
Why does an AAW radar such as SAMPSON need to be mounted on a tall mast, and how does that influence ship size?
Why does an ASW frigate need a different hull form and machinery to an AAW destroyer?
Why is Radar Cross Section important, and why design warships to minimise it?
All these things have been discussed at length. including here: Late 1970s US Congress Report - The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW) - including Maths/Physics
Currently eleven pages long, there is a focus on the use of carriers in NATO's plans to fight a war at sea, with contributions from a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler Naval Flight Officer with extensive carrier experience, studies by US Congressional and other researchers, academic papers, articles from the USNI Journal and other learned sources, papers written by former Soviet Naval Aviation types, talks by historians, as well as news articles. There is vey little off topic nonsense, no inter service bitching,no conspiracy theories about Australia being moved on a map, just speed/time/distance considerations, electromagnetic wave propagation issues, basic underwater acoustics, probability...
I am intrigued about the sudden flurry of name related interest, especially when something like the MARITIME OPERATING CONCEPT - THE MARITIME FORCE CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTEGRATED OPERATING CONCEPT is public, and puts the carriers front and centre. On the topic of Carrier Strike, it said:
• Project decisive air power from a protected maritime task group, including gaining and retaining the necessary degree of sea control to ensure Freedom of Manoeuvre.
Having this in black and white is significant, considering the number of people who think that the carrier will just provide offensive air power against shore targets and that other warships will provide all the air defence and ASW. It also make the point that the carrier's aircraft provide a protective umbrella over a large area in which friendly forces operate, despite the attempts of numpties to claim that it is 'defending the carrier'.
Physics and Maths (and Geography) are involved in answering questions such as:
Why do you want to use aircraft for air defence when you have surface to air missiles?
Why are low frequency towed array sonars more effective than hull mounted ones?
Why are dipping sonars important and why is collocating multiple ASW helicopters useful?
Why does a task group of radar equipped warships need an airborne radar?
Why does an AAW radar such as SAMPSON need to be mounted on a tall mast, and how does that influence ship size?
Why does an ASW frigate need a different hull form and machinery to an AAW destroyer?
Why is Radar Cross Section important, and why design warships to minimise it?
All these things have been discussed at length. including here: Late 1970s US Congress Report - The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW) - including Maths/Physics
Currently eleven pages long, there is a focus on the use of carriers in NATO's plans to fight a war at sea, with contributions from a former US Navy EA-6B Prowler Naval Flight Officer with extensive carrier experience, studies by US Congressional and other researchers, academic papers, articles from the USNI Journal and other learned sources, papers written by former Soviet Naval Aviation types, talks by historians, as well as news articles. There is vey little off topic nonsense, no inter service bitching,no conspiracy theories about Australia being moved on a map, just speed/time/distance considerations, electromagnetic wave propagation issues, basic underwater acoustics, probability...
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Oct 2022 at 09:32.
I suppose a follow up question is how large a protected air, surface and sub-surface battle space is needed to afford security for the Fleet Task Force.
Then as in any guesstimate of enemy strengths and capabilities....how does one arrive at what potential order of battle numbers and types would have to be countered to ensure that security.
Then as in any guesstimate of enemy strengths and capabilities....how does one arrive at what potential order of battle numbers and types would have to be countered to ensure that security.
And then how are you going to afford them - something the UK didn't really do - we're dependent on other folks to help out
That concept works as long as all parties live up to their promises in both word and deed.
The problem has been pointed out about NATO participation and funding by European Members for example.
The UK removing from service the ASW Nimrods long before the P-8's came on line despite the advances by the Russians in their Submarine fleet is another.
The US cut the CV fleet but still keeps a significant number of them.
Now we see the USMC going to a Defense Model from an Offense Model.
Our National Strategy used to require the US to be able to fight two wars simultaneously.....now there is some question of whether we are capable of winning a single War with a Peer or Near Peer foe.
Naval warfare changes with technology for both defense and offense.....as all warfare has done since times immemorial.
National strategies must ensure our side stays well in advance of any possible oppoonents or array of possible opponents.
Are we succeeding in that?
Are Western Militaries on the decline due to funding, wokism, or societal values?
Can Western forces mobilize the needed combat assets and manpower for an unlimited War owing to having reserve Manpower, assets, and the ability to grow and field what is required?
If we look back to the early days of WWII....and the five or so years before hostilities kicked off.....are we in the same situation as then?
The problem has been pointed out about NATO participation and funding by European Members for example.
The UK removing from service the ASW Nimrods long before the P-8's came on line despite the advances by the Russians in their Submarine fleet is another.
The US cut the CV fleet but still keeps a significant number of them.
Now we see the USMC going to a Defense Model from an Offense Model.
Our National Strategy used to require the US to be able to fight two wars simultaneously.....now there is some question of whether we are capable of winning a single War with a Peer or Near Peer foe.
Naval warfare changes with technology for both defense and offense.....as all warfare has done since times immemorial.
National strategies must ensure our side stays well in advance of any possible oppoonents or array of possible opponents.
Are we succeeding in that?
Are Western Militaries on the decline due to funding, wokism, or societal values?
Can Western forces mobilize the needed combat assets and manpower for an unlimited War owing to having reserve Manpower, assets, and the ability to grow and field what is required?
If we look back to the early days of WWII....and the five or so years before hostilities kicked off.....are we in the same situation as then?
I am not sure that the Ship Names Committee ( or whatever it is these days) has chosen a new name for a Royal Navy warship in donkeys ages. QNLZ was a last a Dreadnought of 1915. POW famously demonstrated that a battleship in hostile water without air cover is in serious dwang.
N
N
It's interesting to note that Queen Elizabeth was also the suggested/intended name for CVA01 in the 60s. The difference then was the suggestion for a second ship (CVA-02) was Duke of Edinburgh rather than Prince of Wales.
"National strategies must ensure our side stays well in advance of any possible opponents or array of possible opponents."
I'm afraid that's only an aspiration. The RN also used to aim to be able to fight all comers at once but by the early 1900's it the costs just became extreme - hence they started signing treaties with Japan and France
I feel that right now most Western democracies are still very much kit focussed - whilst the Ukraine war shows (again) how just how many Poor Bloody Infantry you're going to need when a real war breaks out.
I'm afraid that's only an aspiration. The RN also used to aim to be able to fight all comers at once but by the early 1900's it the costs just became extreme - hence they started signing treaties with Japan and France
I feel that right now most Western democracies are still very much kit focussed - whilst the Ukraine war shows (again) how just how many Poor Bloody Infantry you're going to need when a real war breaks out.
Thread Starter
SASless
I have re-read the USNI article and agree that the idea has merit - although it does not remove the need for ASW helicopters. I am slightly confused by the reference to toxic fuel since as far as I know all air dropped torpedoes are electrically powered. I also note that none of the authors has a background in ASW helicopters or the Orion/Poseidon. I wonder if the proposed system could be fitted to the F-35B?
There is a need to augment and expand ASW capabilities. The UK is looking into using an uncrewed helicopter to drop sonobouys. It sounds like it might be used to augment the Merlin HM2, but a manned helicopter is needed to use dipping sonar, and you need dipping sonar to exploit the potential of the low frequency active sonar towed arrays fitted to ASW frigates, which is why the 2087 equipped Type 23s are equipped to carry and support Merlin.
In reply to your question about how large an area, I think it is worth considering the definition offered by the US Navy in the late 1970s as "The ability to exert air, submarine, and surface control temporarily in an area while moving ships into position to project power ashore or to resupply overseas forces.”
This might interest you: Largest And Most Expensive Aircraft Carrier Ever: USS Ford Ready For ‘Duty’ - 1945
The Navy has also described the cruise as a “service-retained deployment,” while the carrier strike group’s command and control are under U.S. 2nd Fleet commander Vice Adm. Daniel Dwyer. During this time, the carrier will take part in joint exercises with NATO allies including France and Germany, as well as the likely future NATO member Sweden. These will include anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and other drills that test the readiness of the carrier, and its ability to work alongside partner naval vessels.
Meanwhile the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike group is participating in an ASW exercise with South Korea and Japan.
A56
Ukraine is a unique case - as every country is. A non NATO member with a large land border with an aggressive neighbour, and a coast on the Black Sea which the Russians can dominate or deny and with political complications like the Montreux Convention.
I have re-read the USNI article and agree that the idea has merit - although it does not remove the need for ASW helicopters. I am slightly confused by the reference to toxic fuel since as far as I know all air dropped torpedoes are electrically powered. I also note that none of the authors has a background in ASW helicopters or the Orion/Poseidon. I wonder if the proposed system could be fitted to the F-35B?
There is a need to augment and expand ASW capabilities. The UK is looking into using an uncrewed helicopter to drop sonobouys. It sounds like it might be used to augment the Merlin HM2, but a manned helicopter is needed to use dipping sonar, and you need dipping sonar to exploit the potential of the low frequency active sonar towed arrays fitted to ASW frigates, which is why the 2087 equipped Type 23s are equipped to carry and support Merlin.
In reply to your question about how large an area, I think it is worth considering the definition offered by the US Navy in the late 1970s as "The ability to exert air, submarine, and surface control temporarily in an area while moving ships into position to project power ashore or to resupply overseas forces.”
This might interest you: Largest And Most Expensive Aircraft Carrier Ever: USS Ford Ready For ‘Duty’ - 1945
The Navy has also described the cruise as a “service-retained deployment,” while the carrier strike group’s command and control are under U.S. 2nd Fleet commander Vice Adm. Daniel Dwyer. During this time, the carrier will take part in joint exercises with NATO allies including France and Germany, as well as the likely future NATO member Sweden. These will include anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and other drills that test the readiness of the carrier, and its ability to work alongside partner naval vessels.
Meanwhile the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike group is participating in an ASW exercise with South Korea and Japan.
A56
Ukraine is a unique case - as every country is. A non NATO member with a large land border with an aggressive neighbour, and a coast on the Black Sea which the Russians can dominate or deny and with political complications like the Montreux Convention.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 3rd Oct 2022 at 08:31.
WEBF - i can't think of a single war involving the Uk where we had enough Infantry on day 1
In WWII you did not have enough at several points during the War despite the wide mobilization of manpower resources through out the Empire.
Even the US Army and Marine Corps were seeing the limit on acquiring yet more troops.
What won the war was the combined numbers of Allied Troops and and attrition of Axis Troops as the war progressed.
Troops have to be supplied with the needs to conduct training and combat operations thus logistics is the decider in the outcome of a war.
WEB.....this month's "Proceedings" has yet more useful articles re Submarines and Sub Warfare and specifically addresses Undersea Cables and by extension undersea pipelines.
Even the US Army and Marine Corps were seeing the limit on acquiring yet more troops.
What won the war was the combined numbers of Allied Troops and and attrition of Axis Troops as the war progressed.
Troops have to be supplied with the needs to conduct training and combat operations thus logistics is the decider in the outcome of a war.
WEB.....this month's "Proceedings" has yet more useful articles re Submarines and Sub Warfare and specifically addresses Undersea Cables and by extension undersea pipelines.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
UPDATE: British manufacturer Gravity Industries has successfully demonstrated its pioneering jet suits in America, circling New York harbour after taking off from the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier….
I think SAS logistics are vital , but not a determinant. N point in supplying lots of stuff to the front line if a) its no good b) there is no-one to operate it
One thinks of the french AF in 1940......
One thinks of the french AF in 1940......
When the Prince of Wales saga blew up they was a lot of talk about needing a dry dock.
On the Portsmouth web cam it appears to be still tied up at the base. No rush to get it fixed?
mmitch.
On the Portsmouth web cam it appears to be still tied up at the base. No rush to get it fixed?
mmitch.
Money will be an issue, but whilst finding it there are other things to be done before real money has to be committed.
Much better to sit in Pompey investigating till the problem is clearly defined. At the same time check out the other shaft. Then sort out the fix needed and get the necessary repair kit designed, and made, and the installation job planned. Also make preps for a long tow, or to steam on one shaft, to a dock.
All much easier if done thoroughly rather than at the rush.
Old bull, young bull stuff.
N
Much better to sit in Pompey investigating till the problem is clearly defined. At the same time check out the other shaft. Then sort out the fix needed and get the necessary repair kit designed, and made, and the installation job planned. Also make preps for a long tow, or to steam on one shaft, to a dock.
All much easier if done thoroughly rather than at the rush.
Old bull, young bull stuff.
N
Suspicion breeds confidence
With PoW now back at Rosyth, now would be a good time to fit any upgrades they have planned for her. 30mm ASCG would be a start. Personally, I think she's a Jonah and should be flogged off and a proper Catobar carrier built. Save the F34Bs for the QE and buy a bunch of F35Cs