Future Carrier (Including Costs)
It's probably paused because - funny old thing - there's a command paper out shortly and binning a refit as an "option" will be under consideration, which is not necessarily the same thing as a done deal. Happened with Grafton in 2006 and with RFA Fort George in 2010.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Tisa getting feedback of another two T23s which may be uneconomic to repair - that would take the escort fleet down to 8….
In the aftermath of @NavyLookout story on HMS Westminster the mice are scurrying in all directions about the state of the RN escort fleet. I've now had half doz sources - all in the same capability area - coming up with the same thing in the aftermath of the de factor retirement of HMS Westminster. She's not the last to see this.…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...300805121.html
In the aftermath of @NavyLookout story on HMS Westminster the mice are scurrying in all directions about the state of the RN escort fleet. I've now had half doz sources - all in the same capability area - coming up with the same thing in the aftermath of the de factor retirement of HMS Westminster. She's not the last to see this.…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...300805121.html
Tisa getting feedback of another two T23s which may be uneconomic to repair - that would take the escort fleet down to 8….
In the aftermath of @NavyLookout story on HMS Westminster the mice are scurrying in all directions about the state of the RN escort fleet. I've now had half doz sources - all in the same capability area - coming up with the same thing in the aftermath of the de factor retirement of HMS Westminster. She's not the last to see this.…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...300805121.html
In the aftermath of @NavyLookout story on HMS Westminster the mice are scurrying in all directions about the state of the RN escort fleet. I've now had half doz sources - all in the same capability area - coming up with the same thing in the aftermath of the de factor retirement of HMS Westminster. She's not the last to see this.…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...300805121.html
"Pour concrete into the hulls to strengthen them....." FFS.
"Tisa getting feedback of another two T23s which may be uneconomic to repair - that would take the escort fleet down to 8…."
I think its possible - but it really should just say "we've run out of money"
With 6 xT45 and 8 x T23 that means we can field 5-7 escorts using the usual refit/training/service metric. Surely a Labour Govt can't do any worse than the lot currently running UK defence?
I think its possible - but it really should just say "we've run out of money"
With 6 xT45 and 8 x T23 that means we can field 5-7 escorts using the usual refit/training/service metric. Surely a Labour Govt can't do any worse than the lot currently running UK defence?
"Tisa getting feedback of another two T23s which may be uneconomic to repair - that would take the escort fleet down to 8…."
I think its possible - but it really should just say "we've run out of money"
With 6 xT45 and 8 x T23 that means we can field 5-7 escorts using the usual refit/training/service metric. Surely a Labour Govt can't do any worse than the lot currently running UK defence?
I think its possible - but it really should just say "we've run out of money"
With 6 xT45 and 8 x T23 that means we can field 5-7 escorts using the usual refit/training/service metric. Surely a Labour Govt can't do any worse than the lot currently running UK defence?
1. Ordered the T45 with the WR21 propulsion plant - although to be fair the "doesn't work in hot water" story is a red-herring, it's actually the CLS contract and associated spares that are the issue
2. Deferred a decision to proceed with what was the T22/23(R), then FSC, then GCS, no fewer than three times (1999, 2003 and 2006 since you ask), which has resulted in the aged T23 fleet
3. Concocted a Maritime Industrial Strategy that deliberately as an objective intended to have a single complex warship building yard in the UK, which directly affected build rate of T26
4. Conducted two out of area operations at a scale and duration way outside planning (and therefore budgeting) assumptions, which scavenged budgets across defence
Those four facts are directly responsible for the current state of affairs - to have met the original design life of T23, the FoC T26 should have entered service in around 2009, (so order in 2003-4). For a 25 year life, FoC in 2015 or thereabouts, so order in 2008-9. It is also worth pointing out that the coalition government deferred ordering T26 - although that was largely due to the unfortunate fact that BAES spent all the assessment phase funding doing one design, only for the RN/MoD to change a fundamental aspect of it, thereby forcing a redesign and a slippage and a consequent budget game of chicken that took three years to resolve.
However, back to actual reality. Last time I looked this week there are four T45 at sea or available for sea. There are also six T23 at sea or available for sea. That's ten from seventeen. When Wallace said he wanted more ships available for sea, he meant it - and the Triumvirate took it seriously and made it happen (consequences TBC). What is certain is that the number of ships along the wall in Portsmouth now is significantly fewer than five or six years ago.
Suspect this is the usual "options" pre Command Paper silly season.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 8th Jun 2023 at 10:58.
ten from 17 is good number - I've never been a fan of the USN 33%-33%-33% idea
Now we just have to wait to see what actually happens in the Command Paper I guess
Now we just have to wait to see what actually happens in the Command Paper I guess
10/17 number includes those alongside, returning for maintenance or repair, preparing to sail or just about to undergo a knee-trembling feasibility assessment to see if they will ever sail again etc. If you called a snap operation and sortied the lot (once suitably bombed-up) you would find a somewhat lower number. The competition for resources, including crews that are trained, ready and equipped, let alone with fully-serviceable sensors and full weapons fit, would induce tears.
The USN sails like they are just about to start a war. Manpower and maintenance still hits them hard though and the surface fleet is currently considering a switch to a Blue/Gold 2-crew model. No doubt they will find that it is more efficient, to the point that they drain the supporting lines and end up with harder-working ships awaiting their turn at saturated maintenance facilities. But surely, more must be better, right?
The USN sails like they are just about to start a war. Manpower and maintenance still hits them hard though and the surface fleet is currently considering a switch to a Blue/Gold 2-crew model. No doubt they will find that it is more efficient, to the point that they drain the supporting lines and end up with harder-working ships awaiting their turn at saturated maintenance facilities. But surely, more must be better, right?
The one in three is not just a USN thing - it's a planning metric based on operating regimes and crewing methods from last century. It is not - and never has been - a hard and fast rule that determines actual ship availability. That depends vastly more on complementing method, branch structures, ILS and spares among other things.
The following users liked this post:
10/17 number includes those alongside, returning for maintenance or repair, preparing to sail or just about to undergo a knee-trembling feasibility assessment to see if they will ever sail again etc. If you called a snap operation and sortied the lot (once suitably bombed-up) you would find a somewhat lower number. The competition for resources, including crews that are trained, ready and equipped, let alone with fully-serviceable sensors and full weapons fit, would induce tears.
It's also fair to say that just because we're aware of UK material state deficiencies, doesn't mean they don't apply to other navies across the board. Your point re USN Blue/Gold and impact on maintenance facs is also spot on.
"Despite quoting predictions based on it at every opportunity"
because dear boy that's what almost every article/expert/ navy quotes -
"usually to support some spurious argument that we should bin off the carriers in order to have more escorts, for reasons which you are never able to articulate, nor indeed what all these other escorts are supposed to do without air cover."
true I think the carriers are a gross waste of men and money for the UK - the reasons have been argued by others as well for many years on here. And you don't need carriers to have air cover.
And the rest of the navy doesn't exist to "escort" carriers - not much global coverage if all of then are steaming around 1 or 2carriers is there?
I realise this is not popular with those who served in carriers previously but there is only one navy in the world that has serious air cover provided by carriers - and its not the UK
because dear boy that's what almost every article/expert/ navy quotes -
"usually to support some spurious argument that we should bin off the carriers in order to have more escorts, for reasons which you are never able to articulate, nor indeed what all these other escorts are supposed to do without air cover."
true I think the carriers are a gross waste of men and money for the UK - the reasons have been argued by others as well for many years on here. And you don't need carriers to have air cover.
And the rest of the navy doesn't exist to "escort" carriers - not much global coverage if all of then are steaming around 1 or 2carriers is there?
I realise this is not popular with those who served in carriers previously but there is only one navy in the world that has serious air cover provided by carriers - and its not the UK
"Despite quoting predictions based on it at every opportunity"
because dear boy that's what almost every article/expert/ navy quotes -
"usually to support some spurious argument that we should bin off the carriers in order to have more escorts, for reasons which you are never able to articulate, nor indeed what all these other escorts are supposed to do without air cover."
true I think the carriers are a gross waste of men and money for the UK - the reasons have been argued by others as well for many years on here. And you don't need carriers to have air cover.
And the rest of the navy doesn't exist to "escort" carriers - not much global coverage if all of then are steaming around 1 or 2carriers is there?
I realise this is not popular with those who served in carriers previously but there is only one navy in the world that has serious air cover provided by carriers - and its not the UK
because dear boy that's what almost every article/expert/ navy quotes -
"usually to support some spurious argument that we should bin off the carriers in order to have more escorts, for reasons which you are never able to articulate, nor indeed what all these other escorts are supposed to do without air cover."
true I think the carriers are a gross waste of men and money for the UK - the reasons have been argued by others as well for many years on here. And you don't need carriers to have air cover.
And the rest of the navy doesn't exist to "escort" carriers - not much global coverage if all of then are steaming around 1 or 2carriers is there?
I realise this is not popular with those who served in carriers previously but there is only one navy in the world that has serious air cover provided by carriers - and its not the UK
If that big carrier navy is not available in Europe. Who provides the air cover?
As ever, I am concerned that the extreme cases will turn up in the command paper in the same way the ones Henry Leach was told not to be worried about appeared in Cmd 8288.
My understanding is St Albans (the newest hull) is on course to be available later this year (N_a_ B Am I correct?) leaving Argyll & Sutherland in refit, I do wonder if Montrose and Monmouth are the ones being referred to by Tusa's sources not the highlanders (couldn't resist).N_A_B, I did wonder if you were being a bit disingenuous about the Pompey dock wall: Daring and Dragon are in refit, Lancaster is the forward deployed ship, Iron Duck is just out of LIFEX, Argyll is in LIFEX and Westminster should be in LIFEX. I agree 59% availiblity is pretty good. Regarding the crewing I thought at least Lancaster of the T23s and some of the T45s have Port and Starboard crews (and two captains)?.
And we have discussed these two ad nauseam, Asturias you and I will have to agree to disagree about their usefulness.
My understanding is St Albans (the newest hull) is on course to be available later this year (N_a_ B Am I correct?) leaving Argyll & Sutherland in refit, I do wonder if Montrose and Monmouth are the ones being referred to by Tusa's sources not the highlanders (couldn't resist).N_A_B, I did wonder if you were being a bit disingenuous about the Pompey dock wall: Daring and Dragon are in refit, Lancaster is the forward deployed ship, Iron Duck is just out of LIFEX, Argyll is in LIFEX and Westminster should be in LIFEX. I agree 59% availiblity is pretty good. Regarding the crewing I thought at least Lancaster of the T23s and some of the T45s have Port and Starboard crews (and two captains)?.
And we have discussed these two ad nauseam, Asturias you and I will have to agree to disagree about their usefulness.
I note that you remain completely unable to articulate what it is you think these escorts do, as well as perpetuating the myth that you don't need carriers to provide air cover over maritime forces against any real threat at any significant distance from land (go on, name one).
If that big carrier navy is not available in Europe. Who provides the air cover?
If that big carrier navy is not available in Europe. Who provides the air cover?
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The biggest problem I found, at Buchan, with maintaining AD cover over the fleet during JMC and other exercises was the fact that the majority of the fighters were shot down by the fleet as soon as they passed through the handover gate….
I will note I am high tone deaf from the hours monitoring the HF comms as Maritime Marshall in a futile attempt to prevent such fratricide….
I will note I am high tone deaf from the hours monitoring the HF comms as Maritime Marshall in a futile attempt to prevent such fratricide….
[...]the majority of the fighters were shot down by the fleet as soon as they passed through the handover gate…[...].
The biggest problem I found, at Buchan, with maintaining AD cover over the fleet during JMC and other exercises was the fact that the majority of the fighters were shot down by the fleet as soon as they passed through the handover gate….
I will note I am high tone deaf from the hours monitoring the HF comms as Maritime Marshall in a futile attempt to prevent such fratricide….
I will note I am high tone deaf from the hours monitoring the HF comms as Maritime Marshall in a futile attempt to prevent such fratricide….
Let's be honest - if someone proposed buying two carriers for the RN today what would be the reaction?
a) We must have them - FULL SPEED AHEAD
b) an embarrassed silence
c) send for the men in white coats.
Unfortunately we've built two carriers that, because we couldn't/wouldn't afford to do the job properly, are based on a compromised design. We can't afford the aircraft to operate from them and they have (or will have) only a very limited AEW capability, no COD capability, We need to borrow ships from other navies to protect them on deployment. Meanwhile the rest of the navy gets smaller and smaller and critical capabilities are wasting away or are deferred to some nebulous future date.
It's a very sad business
a) We must have them - FULL SPEED AHEAD
b) an embarrassed silence
c) send for the men in white coats.
Unfortunately we've built two carriers that, because we couldn't/wouldn't afford to do the job properly, are based on a compromised design. We can't afford the aircraft to operate from them and they have (or will have) only a very limited AEW capability, no COD capability, We need to borrow ships from other navies to protect them on deployment. Meanwhile the rest of the navy gets smaller and smaller and critical capabilities are wasting away or are deferred to some nebulous future date.
It's a very sad business
Let's be honest - if someone proposed buying two carriers for the RN today what would be the reaction?
a) We must have them - FULL SPEED AHEAD
b) an embarrassed silence
c) send for the men in white coats.
Unfortunately we've built two carriers that, because we couldn't/wouldn't afford to do the job properly, are based on a compromised design. We can't afford the aircraft to operate from them and they have (or will have) only a very limited AEW capability, no COD capability, We need to borrow ships from other navies to protect them on deployment. Meanwhile the rest of the navy gets smaller and smaller and critical capabilities are wasting away or are deferred to some nebulous future date.
It's a very sad business
a) We must have them - FULL SPEED AHEAD
b) an embarrassed silence
c) send for the men in white coats.
Unfortunately we've built two carriers that, because we couldn't/wouldn't afford to do the job properly, are based on a compromised design. We can't afford the aircraft to operate from them and they have (or will have) only a very limited AEW capability, no COD capability, We need to borrow ships from other navies to protect them on deployment. Meanwhile the rest of the navy gets smaller and smaller and critical capabilities are wasting away or are deferred to some nebulous future date.
It's a very sad business
Just for balance: in terms of airframe numbers, the second tranche of 26 F35s is approved and funded. That will give a UK based fleet of 70, which is certainly enough to support the UK's current "ambition" of fielding one fully equipped carrier with a bit left over. And although escort numbers are tight at present, as a result of bad succession planning in the past, the UK does or certainly will have enough escorts to escort the carriers. Featuring other nations' escorts in a task group has long been standard practice - eg we, the French and the Dutch regularly feature in US carrier groups and they feature in ours. It makes geopolitical sense as well as aiding interoperability. I think I'm right in saying the F35B has range similar to the F18 and manoeuvrability similar to the F16, coupled with superlative sensors and a degree of stealth. Carrier quals are much easier to get and to maintain. Overall, for what the UK wants to do, it's a pretty good combination. I don't expect to persuade anyone, just to reinforce that there is no monopoly of views.
The following users liked this post: