Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Also remember that RN Admirals currently hold the Chief of Defence Staff post and the NATO Deputy Supreme Commander Europe, as as the UK is the lead nation for NATO Maritime Command there is a requirement for a Vice Admiral there. The RN itself only has one four star (First Sea Lord) - thirty years ago it had four.

Anyway - since this is a carrier thread:

1. The WESTLANT23 deployment has achieved its aims and HMS Prince of Wales is returning to Britain:

HMS Prince of Wales homeward bound after successful sea and air trials in US - Forces.Net

HMS Prince of Wales is on her way back to the UK after being deployed to the eastern United States for sea and air trials.

In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, the aircraft carrier's account showed a timelapse video of the ship leaving Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia.

"Final port visit complete. We are on our way home! 3500 NM to run…" the post said...

2. Royal Navy destroyer deployed to the Gulf on maritime security mission

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said: “Recent events have proven how critical the Middle East remains to global security and stability.

“From joint efforts to deter escalation, following the onset of the renewed conflict in Israel and Gaza, to now the unlawful and brazen seizure of MV Galaxy Leader by the Houthis in the Red Sea – it is critical that the UK bolsters our presence in the region, to keep Britain and our interests safe from a more volatile and contested world.

“Today’s deployment will strengthen the Royal Navy’s patrols, help to keep critical trade routes open and prove that our commitment to regional security not only endures but enhances.”

American destroyers have shot down cruise missiles and 'drones'. An Israeli F-35I has splashed a cruise missile over the Red Sea, and not so many pages back I posted a link to a CIMSEC article that made the point that it makes sense to use the aircraft aboard a carrier to deal with masses or cruise missiles as well as aircraft, due to their range and ability to detect and engage at long ranges.

3. Closer to home:

Royal Navy task force to deploy with JEF partners to defend undersea cables - MOD

A Royal Navy task force of seven ships will deploy with allies early next month to jointly patrol areas with vulnerable undersea critical infrastructure, following an unprecedented agreement by ministers of the ten JEF nations.

The UK contribution to the deployment will include two Royal Navy frigates, two offshore patrol vessels and mine countermeasures vessels, as well as a Royal Fleet Auxiliary landing ship – supported by a Royal Air Force P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.

The contingent will depart in early December to join other ships and aircraft from JEF participant nations to launch joint patrols, with vessels spaced to cover a wide area from the English Channel to the Baltic Sea – demonstrating the interoperability between JEF nations in the maritime and air domains.

It comes after defence ministers from all ten JEF nations met on Tuesday and unanimously agreed to activate a protocol mobilising military assets from across participant nations – known as a JEF Response Option (JRO) – for the first time in JEF’s history.

JEF can respond very quickly without needing a meeting of the North Atlantic Council, a like NATO's standing maritime groups and forward deployed forces it can provide a rapid response to a crisis in Northern Europe. The term 'task force' is misleading and a bit overdramatic - the ships and aircraft will be doing fairly normal roles.

During the first part of the CSG23 deployment, HMS Queen Elizabeth acted as part of JEF when she deployed to the Norwegian Sea and demonstrated/rehearsed protecting the sea lines of communication that would be vital for reinforcing Norway and other Nordic countries in time of crisis. Next year there will be a major NATO reinforcement exercise - Steadfast Defender 24 - as mentioned in this press release from the Prime Minister's Office - 13 Oct 23

Meeting northern European leaders today on the strategically important island of Gotland to discuss the challenges facing the region, as well as the situation in Israel, the Prime Minister warned that Putin’s failures in Ukraine were emboldening Russia’s irresponsible behaviour in other parts of Europe.

He told leaders that while Putin had lost significant ground in Ukraine since he launched his barbaric invasion, allies and partners should not be lulled into a false sense of security. The Kremlin was reinvesting in military capability and turning to a diminishing number of malevolent and marginalised partners to try and rebuild its strength and undermine global stability.

His warning came after damage was detected earlier this week to two pipelines between Estonia and Finland, and HMS Queen Elizabeth was forced to launch fast jets from her deck in the Arctic last week to escort Russian Maritime Patrol Aircraft that flew close to the Carrier Strike Group operating in the region.

The statement also looked ahead to Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024:

The carrier group, including HMS Queen Elizabeth, will return early next year to lead the UK’s contribution to the first phase of NATO’s most ambitious military drill since the Cold War, Exercise Steadfast Defender.

The operation will span almost six months and see 16,000 UK soldiers deploy to Estonia and Norway...

[Asturias56]

Maybe divert the poW to Guyana?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

809 Naval Air Squadron was recommissioned today: Phoenix rising: iconic Naval unit re-born as UK’s second front-line F-35 squadron - Royal Navy

From the ashes the torch today passed between generations of pilots, and the UK – and Navy – gained a new front-line fast-jet squadron.

809 Naval Air Squadron joins the RAF’s 617 ‘Dambusters’ as the second, front-line stealth fighter formation, operating the F-35B Lightning.

Nearly 41 years to the day that 809 – known as the Phoenix Squadron, its pilots nicknamed The Immortals – passed into history at RNAS Yeovilton, it was brought back to life in front of scores of friends, family and VIPs at RAF Marham.

The last naval officer to hold the title of 809 Commanding Officer, Commander Tim Gedge, symbolically presented the unit crest – a phoenix rising from the flames – to the pilot in charge of its re-birth, Commander Nick Smith, the emotional high point of an hour-long ceremony and service which concluded with an F-35 flypast over the Norfolk air base...

[Asturias56]

How many aircraft does it have? "An F-35" = 1

[ORAC]

https://x.com/alessionaval/status/17...HhlFHGKbTPQr_A

Good evening. The pas few weeks have been quite eventful from a naval perspective. Several theatres have seen different types of action - all providing evidence of the declination of sea power in the contemporary world, and of how contested order at sea stands. A thread:​​​​​​​

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...143321932.html

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Just think - only a few months ago the tabloids were using words like scrapyard:

Thousands greet Britain’s biggest warship as HMS Prince of Wales completes US deployment - Royal Navy

More than 2,000 friends and family today gave the biggest welcome to Britain’s biggest warship as HMS Prince of Wales returned to Portsmouth.

The aircraft carrier enjoyed the largest homecoming the Hampshire Naval Base has seen in several years as she completed a three-month deployment to the United States.

The ship left Portsmouth at the beginning of September for an autumn dedicated to expanding the boundaries of naval aviation with the UK’s two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

Successful trials have been carried out with small pilotless drones, which could take the place of helicopters in delivering supplies to a task group, and much larger crewless aircraft, which could conduct long-range surveillance or strike missions in the future.

Extensive trials have been conducted with the US Marine Corps and F-35 Lightning jets which mean in future the stealth fighters can be launched on more sorties, more quickly, with a heavier payload – weapons or fuel – in worse weather conditions if required.

The carrier’s flight deck – which has never been busier – has also frequently hosted US Marine Corps Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and a series of gunships and general purpose helicopters to maximise the ability of the two allies’ military forces to operate seamlessly together...

[Asturias56]

"Just think - only a few months ago the tabloids were using words like scrapyard:"

I think you'll find the words were incompetence, bad workmanship and white elephant

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Has there been a change of thinking regarding the use of language on the RN website? I have often tutted and shaken my head at descriptions of the jets 'protecting the carrier' or the Merlin doing the same. However, I have recently looked again:

F-35 LIGHTNING

Providing the punch of the Royal Navy’s Queen Elizabeth Class carriers, this stealth fighter provides air superiority...

MERLIN

Allowing the Royal Navy to flex its airborne muscles, the versatile Merlins defend maritime forces (MK2)...

Air superiority at sea means air defence. Maritime forces include things such as amphibious forces and crisis response shipping.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Countering threats to shipping could be described as sea control.

US Navy shoots down more than a dozen drones, missiles in Red Sea - Navy Times

The Navy destroyer Laboon and other U.S. assets shot down more than a dozen drones and missiles in the Red Sea on Tuesday — just days after the ship took down four unmanned aerial vehicles in the same waters.

The incident is the latest episode where U.S. warships in the Middle East have intercepted air drones and missiles that officials claim originated from Iran-allied Houthi rebels in Yemen, amid heightened tensions in the region stemming from the Israel-Hamas war.

According to U.S. Central Command, U.S. assets including the Laboon and F/A-18 Super Hornets from the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group “shot down twelve one-way attack drones, three anti-ship ballistic missiles, and two land attack cruise missiles in the Southern Red Sea that were fired by the Houthis over a 10 hour period” on Tuesday...

[Asturias56]

I doubt the RN would risk a carrier in the Red Sea right now....................... and how many RN aircraft are there to embark?

[Ninthace]

Why do the ac have to be RN and if you are using a carrier, why operate in a relatively confined area like the Red Sea?

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

I doubt the RN would risk a carrier in the Red Sea right now....................... and how many RN aircraft are there to embark?

Has anybody suggested they should? You’re just making things up.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

I doubt the RN would risk a carrier in the Red Sea right now....................... and how many RN aircraft are there to embark?

Why? It is only a small area of the Red Sea where the attacks are taking place, and as I am sure you are aware the UK F-35B Lightning is jointly RN/RAF run. There is of course the issue of planned operations - mostly NATO ones.

However, this story (of which I am sure we will hear more in due course) is contrary to the popular belief that the carrier exists solely to hit targets ashore. That is why I have flagged it up and see it as significant. No Navy has yet resolved the issue of reloading vertically launched missiles at sea, however air to air missiles are routinely transferred from an supply vessel to a carrier. In time we will learn more details, such as what weapon was used by the Super Hornets. Using an AAM against a 'drone' might be a bit over the top, so perhaps cannon was used. This would highlight the decision not to equip British F-35Bs with the 25mm cannon. AAM versus anti ship missile is good value considering the damage they cause if they hit.

Like the conflict in Ukraine having the potential to teach lessons (for example the Russians SSKs in the Black Sea can operate with impunity due to the lack of a Ukrainian ASW capability, or that the Russians counter the Ukrainian USVs with radar equipped aircraft and armed helicopters - not unlike the way we would deal with a small craft threat), there are lessons from the current situation with the Houthis. This video from HI Sutton is interesting:

Yemen's Unconventional Naval Threat To World Shipping In Red Sea Explained (youtube.com)

[tdracer]

Carriers exist to project force over 100's of miles - quite simply the range of carrier-based aircraft carrying bombs, etc. is many times further than naval guns can reach. While modern cruise missiles can also do this, there often targets where an aircraft's ability to 'put eyes on target' makes it preferable to a missile.
However, for a carrier to be a viable force, it also needs to be protected - hence it's carrier based aircraft also have the responsibility to protect the carrier (in days past, there were dedicated fighter aircraft intended for fleet defense - however modern multi-roll aircraft such as the F/A-18 and F-35 can be tasked to do both.
If the only purpose of the aircraft carrier's aircraft was to protect the carrier, there would be no purpose for having a carrier.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by tdracer

Carriers exist to project force over 100's of miles - quite simply the range of carrier-based aircraft carrying bombs, etc. is many times further than naval guns can reach. While modern cruise missiles can also do this, there often targets where an aircraft's ability to 'put eyes on target' makes it preferable to a missile.
However, for a carrier to be a viable force, it also needs to be protected - hence it's carrier based aircraft also have the responsibility to protect the carrier (in days past, there were dedicated fighter aircraft intended for fleet defense - however modern multi-roll aircraft such as the F/A-18 and F-35 can be tasked to do both.
If the only purpose of the aircraft carrier's aircraft was to protect the carrier, there would be no purpose for having a carrier.

No carrier has ever carried fighters for her own self defence - defence of the fleet (also things such as maritime logistics or amphibious forces - which some count as power projection) demands defending other high value vessels - and the carrier can take the fight to an enemy at much great range than shipborne defences. The carrier also provides the most effective platform for operating a large number of ASW helicopters.

During the Second World War escort carrier borne fighters and ASW aircraft played war winning roles in the Atlantic and Arctic, and also the Pacific. During the Cold War NATO relied on carriers to take the fight to Soviet aircraft and submarines, and heavy Soviet warships. In the Falklands the carriers achieved enough air superiority to allow the landings to take place and played a major part on containing the limited but credible submarine threat. By the 1980s the plan was for American carriers to sortie into the Norwegian Sea and primarily fight a decisive battle against the missile armed Bears and Backfires, whilst the RN ASW carriers would provide ASW ahead of them (but behind the Tomcats and land based fighters) and the ASW Sea King was their main aircraft, with the Sea Harrier (limited radar and weapons in the FRS1 days) and AEW Sea Kings dealing with Bears providing targeting information for long range submarine launched missiles. There was also going to be a Spanish ASW group off the coat of Portugal, and a French carrier in the Mediterranean.

In the words of a former US Navy flyer: ...the primary mission for the CV/CVN in the North Atlantic was not ASW (it was an additional role) but rather AAW to prevent the Backfire/Bears from attacking the convoys. The A-6/A-7s were the organic tankers to push the F-4/F-14 CAP stations out to a range to shoot the archer, not the arrows. Obviously, those roles swapped a bit when you started facing a surface threat or got close enough to land to start contemplating strikes against those Soviet Naval Air Arm airfields.

From another thread another thread in another place about the carrier and sea control in the NATO theatre.

Also see: U.S. Naval Strategy in the 1980s

Page 75/76: Our key allies would increase their readiness and, in accordance with plans, deploy some of their forces. The NATO Standing Naval Forces in the Atlantic and the Channel would increase readiness, and the Naval On-call Force, Mediterranean would be constituted. The Royal Navy would send SSN’s forward and a British ASW task group, centered around at least one carrier, would put to sea in EASTLANT. French carrier task groups and submarines could be expected to put to sea in the Western Mediterranean.

The West German Navy would move to conduct forward operations in the Baltic, and the Turkish Navy, especially its submarines, would do the same in the Black Sea. The Italian Navy would deploy in the North Central Med, and a Spanish ASW carrier task group would also get under way in the Atlantic.

British and Dutch Marines would reinforce Norway...

Or: New Technology and Medium Navies by Norman Friedman (1999)

Alternatively, it might be said that the use of external sensors in combination with shipboard assets can leverage the considerable investment the ships represent. For example, during the latter part of the Cold War the U.S. Navy planned to fight an Outer Air Battle to destroy the Soviet naval bombers (mainly 'Backfires') which would otherwise have destroyed NATO shipping. It was quite clear that existing NATO frigates, which were optimized for anti-submarine warfare, could not deal with the 'Backfire' threat. At best they might have fended off some of the missiles the bombers launched, without dealing with the bombers at all. The bombers would simply have come back, and destroyed the surface units whose weapons had been depleted.

This thinking is very different from that usually associated with sea control. It is, however, very consistent with classical naval strategy. The question is, how can sea communications be protected against a very powerful enemy force? Naval assets did not (and do not) suffice to provide effective cover for enough convoys. In the case of the 'Backfires' and also of nuclear submarines, it could be argued that nothing short of main fleet assets could really deal with the threat; indeed, that any convoy escort which could not deal with the threat would merely provide the attackers with a good target. The solution the U.S. Navy preferred was to seek a decisive battle in which the enemy fleet (in this case, its bombers) could be destroyed. Once the decisive battle had been won, sea control would be ensured, at least against the air threat.

Clearly the Soviets would have preferred to use their bomber force against NATO shipping, rather than to risk it against F-14s and high-grade missile ships. The U.S. Navy therefore emphasized the threat the carriers would present to the one naval asset the Soviets really valued, their ballistic missile submarines. The U.S. Maritime Strategy proclaimed an intent to use carrier-based bombers and Tomahawk missiles to attack the Soviet bases in the Kola, and it was from these bases that the Soviet ballistic missile submarines operated-and were covered, against U.S. and allied submarine attacks. Thus, the U.S. Navy deliberately set up the carriers as a combination of threat and irresistible target. In its view, the 'Backfires' would have to concentrate first on the carriers. The U.S. Navy's tactical problem, then, was not merely to keep the carriers alive, but rather to use them to destroy the 'Backfires'.

Any enemy with a land-based anti-ship strike air force presents a threat similar to that of the 'Backfire' force, because its aircraft can attack from beyond the effective range of surface ships protecting high-value targets. The question for the medium navy, then, is how to use its surface assets and whatever air assets it may share, to destroy the enemy's anti-ship squadrons. Once they are gone, the overall threat to shipping decreases dramatically. Ships incapable of supporting serious anti-air operations may well be effective against the remaining naval threats, such as submarines and surface fast attack craft. However, until the air threat has been neutralized, these ships are very much at risk. The U.S. Outer Air Battle example may, therefore, be worth pursuing.

[Asturias56]

WW2 was over 78 years ago - the FI over 40

78 years before 1945 was 1867 - just after the end of the US Civil War and before the creation of Germany

Times change WEBF

[langleybaston]

WEBF do you really have to shout at us every now and then to make sure that we are awake?

The contributions are valuable [although some are not convinced,] but they are not made extra valuable by bolding.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Happy New Year - we seem to be living in very interesting times!

Asturias56 - the Earth is still round, and covered in sea. Most trade goes via sea. The Western democracies have to use the sea for both peacetime trade and reinforcement/resupply in times of crisis - the likes of Russia, China, and Iran, not so much. World War Two is more relevant that you think - in that it was only when the Atlantic was secure that forces could be built up in Britain for a landing in France, additionally it was only after Malta had been secured and convoys fought through that the Axis forces could be driven out of North Africa, and the escort carrier was also vital to the Arctic convoys.

The Cold War was heavily influenced by the events of 1939 to 1945.

As for the time since the Falklands, more countries have submarines, and more countries have aircraft armed with anti ship missiles. The missiles have become both faster and longer ranged, increasing the importance of engaging the archer before arrows are launched. Additionally merchant ships have got larger and fewer in number, increasing the impact of losing a single one, although it does mean they can be better defended.

langleybaston - no shouting intended. I used bold the emphasise certain parts of the quotes, which were already in italics as quote boxes are clumsy for that. I suppose I do overuse it though!

[Asturias56]

WW2 is a long time ago WEBF - things change. Even the Falklands (where both sides had carriers but one never used theirs) is a long time ago.

yes merchant ships have grown but at nothing like the rate of carriers.

Carriers have become bigger, more expensive ($13Bn just for the vessel for a Ford) and far fewer than in 1945 - losing one now would be a national catastrophe so they will be kept well back

Extrapolating from 1939-45 is comparing two very different worlds

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

WW2 is a long time ago WEBF - things change. Even the Falklands (where both sides had carriers but one never used theirs) is a long time ago.
yes merchant ships have grown but at nothing like the rate of carriers.
Carriers have become bigger, more expensive ($13Bn just for the vessel for a Ford) and far fewer than in 1945 - losing one now would be a national catastrophe so they will be kept well back
Extrapolating from 1939-45 is comparing two very different worlds

The ocean hasn't changed for millennia, and a maritime nation doesn't need carriers right up to the time it really, really does. In the meantime they perform an important role exercising with our international allies and giving the government flexible options to respond to unexpected military or civil events anywhere in the world. For the cost over their lifetime they're a bargain.