Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Q306 Mr Francois: That is really helpful, but you never gave us a number.
Admiral Sir Ben Key: No.
Q307 Mr Francois: Let’s ask you again: how many?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: Because the—
Q308 Mr Francois: Is it in double figures or single figures?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: A very high readiness is in single figures, but that is because we maintain about 50% of the fleet at high readiness and above. Seventeen divided by two is nine—eight and a half.
Mr Francois: Eight and a half. Thank you.
Admiral Sir Ben Key: No.
Q307 Mr Francois: Let’s ask you again: how many?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: Because the—
Q308 Mr Francois: Is it in double figures or single figures?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: A very high readiness is in single figures, but that is because we maintain about 50% of the fleet at high readiness and above. Seventeen divided by two is nine—eight and a half.
Mr Francois: Eight and a half. Thank you.
Thread Starter
Q306 Mr Francois: That is really helpful, but you never gave us a number.
Admiral Sir Ben Key: No.
Q307 Mr Francois: Let’s ask you again: how many?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: Because the—
Q308 Mr Francois: Is it in double figures or single figures?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: A very high readiness is in single figures, but that is because we maintain about 50% of the fleet at high readiness and above. Seventeen divided by two is nine—eight and a half.
Mr Francois: Eight and a half. Thank you.
Admiral Sir Ben Key: No.
Q307 Mr Francois: Let’s ask you again: how many?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: Because the—
Q308 Mr Francois: Is it in double figures or single figures?
Admiral Sir Ben Key: A very high readiness is in single figures, but that is because we maintain about 50% of the fleet at high readiness and above. Seventeen divided by two is nine—eight and a half.
Mr Francois: Eight and a half. Thank you.
The First Sea Lord will also be aware that there is a General Election coming up within the next year, and a possible change of Government.
On the topic of the threat to NATO and carriers, as recently mentioned by the First Sea Lord:
She's back: HMS Queen Elizabeth returns to UK after Nato deployment - Forces.Net (15 Nov 23)
HMS Queen Elizabeth has arrived back in the UK after a deployment which saw her come under Nato command for the first time.
The Royal Navy's flagship arrived back in Portsmouth just after midnight, having travelled nearly 13,000 nautical miles on her deployment.
Her deployment saw her take part in a mock game of cat-and-mouse with a Norwegian submarine playing the aggressor in the North Sea.
She also fell under Nato command, with HMS Queen Elizabeth being deployed in the North Sea, while the Italian navy's aircraft carrier Cavour and the Spanish navy's Juan Carlos were on station in the Mediterranean...
Trials enhance detection of underwater threats - Royal Navy (15 Nov 23)
A series of trials are underway to enhance the way the Royal Navy detects and tracks underwater threats.
HMS Richmond and Merlin helicopters from Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose have been helping the Royal Navy’s Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Spearhead trials team in developing new tactics to battle underwater foes.
Recently, Mercury Trials held as part of the wider Spearhead programme saw data from sensors used by warships, helicopters and uncrewed systems integrated together to better detect and identify evading submarines and make it harder for them to remain hidden.
This UK multi-static sonar capability was tested by Type 23 frigate Richmond and Merlin Mk2 helos in waters off the south coast, alongside industry partners Dstl, Thales, QinetiQ, BAE and Ultra.
It saw the ship’s engineers, underwater warfare experts and industry partners living and working together onboard for a couple of weeks conducting extensive trials and data gathering.
As a fully operational advanced anti-submarine warfare ship, Richmond provides the perfect platform to facilitate these advanced trials. The crew relish the fascinating opportunity to be directly involved with a programme that is key to developing innovations in underwater technology and future anti-submarine warfare.
During the at-sea trials, the frigate simultaneously used her towed array, along with a Merlin Helicopter, to trial cutting-edge sonar networking while collecting a significant amount of underwater data. When processed, this information will contribute to upgrades in submarine detection capabilities, networking, and help to develop AI to support information compilation and decision making...Portland back home after autumn of operations - Royal Navy (17 Nov 23)
Back across the North Atlantic and Portland took her place alongside the UK Carrier Strike Group. She acted as an escort to HMS Queen Elizabeth beside Type 45 destroyer HMS Diamond. She supported the launching of a Training Variant Torpedo from Merlin Mk2 helicopters embarked on the aircraft carrier.
As others have noted, the frigate provides the means for long range detection of submarines, with her towed array sonar. However precisely pinpointing the enemy boat and getting a weapon in the water demands helicopters, particularly dipping sonar fitted ASW ones. Therefore the frigate(s) and carrier work together to counter the submarine threat, just as the destroyer controls jets from the carrier dealing with air threats.
Carriers are needed for Sea Control - as discussed elsewhere on a dedicated thread. Until the strange post Cold War 'end of history era', the carrier was seen in terms of fighting the war at sea. I do urge you to read the thread, including the 1977 report on capabilities that would be needed in the 1980s, and many other official documents along with accounts from front line and academic papers, which deal with issues such as long range defence against air threats, coordinated ASW, and engaging surface targets at range. As major NATO players Italy and Spain also have carriers with fighters and ASW (also AEW) helicopters, which suggests that they are particularly to the NATO theatre. Even in the early/mid 1980s and the AV-8A days, NATO war planning expected a Spanish ASW group centred on their carrier to deploy in the Eastern Atlantic.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Now with the outlook for having sufficient F-35 to cover the operations between both carriers, the catapult plan and traps maybe back on the cards for the carrier, to allow the operation of other types… though we do not have any other carrier aircraft. The picture looks like a semi angled bodge job too.
You couldn’t make it up.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/proj...ks-and-drones/
You couldn’t make it up.
At the ‘Combined Naval Event 2023’ conference held in Farnborough in May, Colonel Phil Kelly, the Head of Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation within the Royal Navy’s Develop Directorate, presented an ambitious vision for the Royal Navy’s future in maritime aviation.
At the ‘Combined Naval Event 2023’ conference held in Farnborough in May, Colonel Phil Kelly, the Head of Carrier Strike and Maritime Aviation within the Royal Navy’s Develop Directorate, presented an ambitious vision for the Royal Navy’s future in maritime aviation.
This vision, part of the broader Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) initiative, includes ‘Project Ark Royal’.
Colonel Kelly’s presentation highlighted several pivotal challenges and objectives:
We’ve known about this part for some time, back in 2021 the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers might be fitted with catapults ‘in the coming years’ in order to launch certain types of aircraft.
Colonel Kelly’s presentation highlighted several pivotal challenges and objectives:
- F-35 Deployment Limitations: The colonel pointed out the current constraints, stating, “Lack of Mass – F35 mass will not reach level required to resource both QEC with full Combat Air potential.“
- Urgency for Uncrewed Platforms: Emphasising the inevitability of adopting these platforms, he noted, “The question is not ‘if’ the Naval force will prioritise and leverage un-crewed platforms and systems, but how quickly and efficiently, in resource constrained environments.“
- Automation for Increased Capacity: Colonel Kelly underscored the importance of automation, “We must free up warfighter capabilities for critical operations, by automating routine/repetitive tasks.“
- Operational Complexities: The focus is on “operating in complex and contested areas all the while reducing the risk to life, force, and mission.“
- Enhancing Operational Reach: The presentation highlighted the need to “increase our range, endurance, and persistence in order to build advantage.“
Retrofitting
As part of the FMAF vision, the Royal Navy aims to retrofit arrestor gear and assisted launch equipment to the Queen Elizabeth class.We’ve known about this part for some time, back in 2021 the Ministry of Defence confirmed that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers might be fitted with catapults ‘in the coming years’ in order to launch certain types of aircraft.
Last edited by NutLoose; 18th Nov 2023 at 14:16.
Its all very good WEBF but we have clear statement (s) that the Navy currently has only 8 or nine ships at readiness AND that we still don't have enough F-35's
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
Its all very good WEBF but we have clear statement (s) that the Navy currently has only 8 or nine ships at readiness AND that we still don't have enough F-35's
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
I hate to think................................. 
0.58 Admirals to Commissioned Vessels (ignoring CDS and HMS Victory)
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news...raft-carriers/
Following up on Nutty's post......as I read this article the transition from the current Carrier layout and configuration to a "Cat and Trap" version is envisioned as taking. place in several evolutions and not just a single step.
At the risk of causing a lot of split Pink Gin's.....knowing the pace of such projects by the UK MOD.....what is the chance the two carriers shall still be in service for that to finally happen?
What aircraft would be utilized that need to be cat launched and retrieved by an arrest landing?
A collateral question is what is the benefit of doing the multi-step method of just determining what the Cat and Trap version shall look like and go straight to that during a scheduled in port overhaul period?
Is it cost, loss of function as the conversion will take longer than the other Carrier can operate before a lengthy in port over haul, or is it cost driven?
During the build of the two....was engineering designs made that allow a quick installation of the Cats and Arresting gear systems?
Following up on Nutty's post......as I read this article the transition from the current Carrier layout and configuration to a "Cat and Trap" version is envisioned as taking. place in several evolutions and not just a single step.
At the risk of causing a lot of split Pink Gin's.....knowing the pace of such projects by the UK MOD.....what is the chance the two carriers shall still be in service for that to finally happen?
What aircraft would be utilized that need to be cat launched and retrieved by an arrest landing?
A collateral question is what is the benefit of doing the multi-step method of just determining what the Cat and Trap version shall look like and go straight to that during a scheduled in port overhaul period?
Is it cost, loss of function as the conversion will take longer than the other Carrier can operate before a lengthy in port over haul, or is it cost driven?
During the build of the two....was engineering designs made that allow a quick installation of the Cats and Arresting gear systems?
Its all very good WEBF but we have clear statement (s) that the Navy currently has only 8 or nine ships at readiness AND that we still don't have enough F-35s
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
It's clear that without some major changes in plans and expenditures the RN is disappearing before our eyes
Its unbelievable
Agreed about the F35 numbers, but it's better to have the ships available but insufficient airframes than the other way round. We can always invite our friends to come along and join us.
Following up on Nutty's post......as I read this article the transition from the current Carrier layout and configuration to a "Cat and Trap" version is envisioned as taking. place in several evolutions and not just a single step.
At the risk of causing a lot of split Pink Gin's.....knowing the pace of such projects by the UK MOD.....what is the chance the two carriers shall still be in service for that to finally happen?
What aircraft would be utilized that need to be cat launched and retrieved by an arrest landing?
A collateral question is what is the benefit of doing the multi-step method of just determining what the Cat and Trap version shall look like and go straight to that during a scheduled in port overhaul period?
Is it cost, loss of function as the conversion will take longer than the other Carrier can operate before a lengthy in port over haul, or is it cost driven?
During the build of the two....was engineering designs made that allow a quick installation of the Cats and Arresting gear systems?
At the risk of causing a lot of split Pink Gin's.....knowing the pace of such projects by the UK MOD.....what is the chance the two carriers shall still be in service for that to finally happen?
What aircraft would be utilized that need to be cat launched and retrieved by an arrest landing?
A collateral question is what is the benefit of doing the multi-step method of just determining what the Cat and Trap version shall look like and go straight to that during a scheduled in port overhaul period?
Is it cost, loss of function as the conversion will take longer than the other Carrier can operate before a lengthy in port over haul, or is it cost driven?
During the build of the two....was engineering designs made that allow a quick installation of the Cats and Arresting gear systems?
The following users liked this post:
Thank you. Serious question from serious amateur military historian whose RN knowledge ended at Trafalgar:
Including or excluding commodores [sort of one star with caveats] how does this compare with, say, RN at time of Jutland? Need 1916 Navy List and 1916 strength destroyers and upward. At a guess, one admiral per 20 ships . 5% rather than 50%.
[OK destroyers were puny, take armoured cruisers?].
Including or excluding commodores [sort of one star with caveats] how does this compare with, say, RN at time of Jutland? Need 1916 Navy List and 1916 strength destroyers and upward. At a guess, one admiral per 20 ships . 5% rather than 50%.
[OK destroyers were puny, take armoured cruisers?].
It makes perfect sense to develop launch/recovery systems in coordination with the needs of air systems that are still in their infancy. Whatever emerges will be chosen to suit the needs of the UK, not the US.
Look back to April 2006 at the start of this thread where "Not A Boffin" addressed the Cats and Traps thing.
Coming almost eighteen years later and the same questions being asked and of course costs have only gone down since then I suppose.
Seems to me ya'll ain't got it figured out yet from the sound of it.
So interesting things about project ark royal
1. MQ-25 stingray talked about
2. Mq-28 ghost bat with arrestor hook illustrated in press releases
High-Performance Uncrewed and Crewed Aircraft Operations: The project “Enables operation of high performance Uncrewed strike and support systems” and holds the “Potential to enable operation of FW crewed aircraft (e.g. F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale).”
Could be funny to see UK buying some rafales to fly of their carrier
1. MQ-25 stingray talked about
2. Mq-28 ghost bat with arrestor hook illustrated in press releases
High-Performance Uncrewed and Crewed Aircraft Operations: The project “Enables operation of high performance Uncrewed strike and support systems” and holds the “Potential to enable operation of FW crewed aircraft (e.g. F/A-18E, F-35C, Rafale).”
Could be funny to see UK buying some rafales to fly of their carrier
"Seems to me ya'll ain't got it figured out yet from the sound of it."
We have - everyone would love to see cats and traps - but we haven't figured out how to afford it ................. even after 17 years
We have - everyone would love to see cats and traps - but we haven't figured out how to afford it ................. even after 17 years
How Many Ships ?
How Many ?
SLXO - Post 7116 - quotes 1SL in his answer to Question 311 - remarking about 'the move from an analogue Navy to a digital Navy'
1SL has just learned that the term 'Digital Navy' means he will soon be able to count the number ofdeplorable - soz - deployable - ships on the fingers of one hand.
LFH
SLXO - Post 7116 - quotes 1SL in his answer to Question 311 - remarking about 'the move from an analogue Navy to a digital Navy'
1SL has just learned that the term 'Digital Navy' means he will soon be able to count the number of
LFH
We need to start worrying when the phrase "Virtual Navy" starts to appear.......................... about 8 years away in my reckoning.................
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
Thank you. Serious question from serious amateur military historian whose RN knowledge ended at Trafalgar:
Including or excluding commodores [sort of one star with caveats] how does this compare with, say, RN at time of Jutland? Need 1916 Navy List and 1916 strength destroyers and upward. At a guess, one admiral per 20 ships . 5% rather than 50%.
[OK destroyers were puny, take armoured cruisers?].
Including or excluding commodores [sort of one star with caveats] how does this compare with, say, RN at time of Jutland? Need 1916 Navy List and 1916 strength destroyers and upward. At a guess, one admiral per 20 ships . 5% rather than 50%.
[OK destroyers were puny, take armoured cruisers?].
In the July 1916 Navy List, on the active list there were 92 Flag Officers (AofF 3, A 12, VA 23, RA 54 (some of whom were acting VA)) - 2 RAs had been KIA in May 1916. Incidently Commodore was a command post not a rank until 1997. There were 644 vessels listed as Ships of the RN, RAN and RCN (Battleships 67, Battle Cruisers 7, Cruisers 40, Light Cruisers 89, Monitors 36, Patrol Boats 11, Depot Ships for Torpedo Craft (not listed as cruisers) 16, Sloops 69, Flotilla Leaders 10 and Torpedo Boat Destroyers 299) which give a FO to HMS ratio of 0.14 which is 7 ships per admiral. There were lots of other vessels but I were I to spend any longer on this the DWO (a distant cousin of whom was one of the 92 and one of the reasons she is, when vexed, given to implying she married beneath her station) would have me keelhauled.
Back to the present - I have to say 50% at high readiness is impressive IMHO.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 20th Nov 2023 at 21:14. Reason: readiness
The linked article's title is a bit misleading as within its contents is some discussion about the Royal Navy and its amazing growth in numbers of Admirals and also discusses a very similar thing in the US Navy.
Parkinson's Law is mentioned and I am supposing it applies on both sides of the Atlantic and not just to our Navy friends.
The rapid pace of business within the two Navy bureaucracies must be very similar as a Sloth seems like a race horse as a comparison.
Then there is the many Layers between the top knobs and those carrying out operations, which I am sure infects both.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...admirals-89416
Parkinson's Law is mentioned and I am supposing it applies on both sides of the Atlantic and not just to our Navy friends.
The rapid pace of business within the two Navy bureaucracies must be very similar as a Sloth seems like a race horse as a comparison.
Then there is the many Layers between the top knobs and those carrying out operations, which I am sure infects both.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...admirals-89416
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
UK Aircraft Carrier Operates Under NATO Command For First Time 25 Nov 2023
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...or-first-time/
"This was the first time either of the UK’s two carriers had come under direct NATO command, Queen Elizabeth’s feed on X (formerly Twitter) posted on 10 November. For 2022, sister ship HMS Prince of Wales had been the NATO Response Force – Maritime (NRF-M) flagship, but had not operated under NATO OPCON....
...For ‘NEST 23-3’, UK, Italian, and Spanish carriers provided the CSG presence, demonstrating the strategic importance of integrating European CSGs in NATO operations....
...For Queen Elizabeth, its ‘NEST’ serials also involved conducting complex anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations against the Royal Norwegian Navy’s (RNoN’s) Ula-class diesel-electric submarine HNoMS Utstein, with the carrier’s embarked Merlin HM2 ASW helicopters and a UK Royal Air Force (RAF) Poseidon P-8A maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) combining to prosecute the submarine target....
...Across the ‘CSG23’ deployment, the Queen Elizabeth CSG conducted various exercises and missions, including: providing carrier-based strike capability to support the new, RAF-led, multinational live-flying exercise, ‘Cobra Warrior’; working with UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) partners, for example exercising with the RNoN in the Norwegian fjords, conducting air operations with Swedish and Finnish aircraft...
...Queen Elizabeth also entered the Arctic Circle for the first time. While operating there, F-35B fighter aircraft from the carrier and Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s operated together to escort a Russian MPA that flew near the CSG."
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...or-first-time/
"This was the first time either of the UK’s two carriers had come under direct NATO command, Queen Elizabeth’s feed on X (formerly Twitter) posted on 10 November. For 2022, sister ship HMS Prince of Wales had been the NATO Response Force – Maritime (NRF-M) flagship, but had not operated under NATO OPCON....
...For ‘NEST 23-3’, UK, Italian, and Spanish carriers provided the CSG presence, demonstrating the strategic importance of integrating European CSGs in NATO operations....
...For Queen Elizabeth, its ‘NEST’ serials also involved conducting complex anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations against the Royal Norwegian Navy’s (RNoN’s) Ula-class diesel-electric submarine HNoMS Utstein, with the carrier’s embarked Merlin HM2 ASW helicopters and a UK Royal Air Force (RAF) Poseidon P-8A maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) combining to prosecute the submarine target....
...Across the ‘CSG23’ deployment, the Queen Elizabeth CSG conducted various exercises and missions, including: providing carrier-based strike capability to support the new, RAF-led, multinational live-flying exercise, ‘Cobra Warrior’; working with UK Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) partners, for example exercising with the RNoN in the Norwegian fjords, conducting air operations with Swedish and Finnish aircraft...
...Queen Elizabeth also entered the Arctic Circle for the first time. While operating there, F-35B fighter aircraft from the carrier and Royal Norwegian Air Force F-35s operated together to escort a Russian MPA that flew near the CSG."
LB my ratio included all ships and boats which are either HM Ship or HM Submarine.
In the July 1916 Navy List, on the active list there were 92 Flag Officers (AofF 3, A 12, VA 23, RA 54 (some of whom were acting VA)) - 2 RAs had been KIA in May 1916. Incidently Commodore was a command post not a rank until 1997. There were 644 vessels listed as Ships of the RN, RAN and RCN (Battleships 67, Battle Cruisers 7, Cruisers 40, Light Cruisers 89, Monitors 36, Patrol Boats 11, Depot Ships for Torpedo Craft (not listed as cruisers) 16, Sloops 69, Flotilla Leaders 10 and Torpedo Boat Destroyers 299) which give a FO to HMS ratio of 0.14 which is 7 ships per admiral. There were lots of other vessels but I were I to spend any longer on this the DWO (a distant cousin of whom was one of the 92 and one of the reasons she is, when vexed, given to implying she married beneath her station) would have me keelhauled.
Back to the present - I have to say 50% at high readiness is impressive IMHO.
In the July 1916 Navy List, on the active list there were 92 Flag Officers (AofF 3, A 12, VA 23, RA 54 (some of whom were acting VA)) - 2 RAs had been KIA in May 1916. Incidently Commodore was a command post not a rank until 1997. There were 644 vessels listed as Ships of the RN, RAN and RCN (Battleships 67, Battle Cruisers 7, Cruisers 40, Light Cruisers 89, Monitors 36, Patrol Boats 11, Depot Ships for Torpedo Craft (not listed as cruisers) 16, Sloops 69, Flotilla Leaders 10 and Torpedo Boat Destroyers 299) which give a FO to HMS ratio of 0.14 which is 7 ships per admiral. There were lots of other vessels but I were I to spend any longer on this the DWO (a distant cousin of whom was one of the 92 and one of the reasons she is, when vexed, given to implying she married beneath her station) would have me keelhauled.
Back to the present - I have to say 50% at high readiness is impressive IMHO.