Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 7th February 2024 | 08:27
  #7281 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
Well the Poles and the Germans provide the battlefield after all
Asturias56 is offline  
Reply
Old 7th February 2024 | 08:37
  #7282 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 252
From: London/Oxford/New York
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"Why do you think NATO considers the carrier to be of extreme importance and aside from Britain, France, Italy, and Spain all have a carrier capability?"

Possibly because the Americans provide all of it for free? The UK has 2 small unreliable carriers that have a handful of jets (and a promise of two squadrons in 18-24 months - wow!), The French have single carrier, The Italians and the Spanish have a glorified, aging helicopter carrier each - the Spanish vessel is no longer listed as an Aircraft Carrier but as an assault ship. The rest of NATO doesn't bother

All together they have less , a lot less, capability of a single US carrier

Small? SMALL?? At over 65,000 tons and the largest vessels ever to enter RN service you have a very strange idea of size…
pr00ne is offline  
Reply
Old 7th February 2024 | 14:13
  #7283 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
I was thinking of the number of aircraft they operate compared to a proper carrier -
Asturias56 is offline  
Reply
Old 7th February 2024 | 14:21
  #7284 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Originally Posted by Asturias56
I was thinking of the number of aircraft they operate compared to a proper carrier -
Once the F35 force has built up - and no I won't defend the speed of that - then there will be enough for what they're supposed to do. One of the reasons they are the size they are is that smaller ones and penny packets of aircraft don't pass the capability test.

It's also worth noting that were one to do a comparison of manpower needed per sortie generated (and indeed equate that to cost), then QEC would be significantly more efficient than a CVN.....
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Reply
Old 7th February 2024 | 15:54
  #7285 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 484
From: The Roman Empire
The UK F-35 fleet is triple, or even quadruple hatted, in terms of meeting UK defence missions in time of war.

So, even if we do get the full 138 order, which I personally very much doubt, I don't think we will often see a sizable chunk of the UK fleet on board a carrier, apart from major exercises planned several years in advance.
Biggus is online now  
Reply
Old 7th February 2024 | 17:19
  #7286 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
Originally Posted by Biggus
The UK F-35 fleet is triple, or even quadruple hatted, in terms of meeting UK defence missions in time of war.

So, even if we do get the full 138 order, which I personally very much doubt, I don't think we will often see a sizable chunk of the UK fleet on board a carrier, apart from major exercises planned several years in advance.

from
:-HoC Defence Committe Report. First Report - Ready for War? - 4th Feb 2024

59. Professor Justin Bronk also raised the issue of F-35 fleet size, describing the F-35 force as “triple or quadruple-hatted in terms of how many parts of UK defence are counting on it for how many mission outputs in the case of a war [and] … there are not very many of them.
Asturias56 is offline  
Reply
Old 8th February 2024 | 08:31
  #7287 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
Well at least we don’t have squadrons earmarked to chop to SACLANT any more….
ORAC is online now  
Reply
Old 10th February 2024 | 16:52
  #7288 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
https://www.navylookout.com/rapid-re...-short-notice/

Rapid response – HMS Prince of Wales sails to replace her sister ship at short notice

Just a week after HMS Queen Elizabeth was withdrawn from exercise Steadfast Defender due to a defect, HMS Prince of Wales will sail on 10th February as her replacement (subject to the usual caveats about weather conditions).

This represents a staggering effort by the ship’s company and the support team in Portsmouth. PWLS was at 30 days’ notice to sail but has been prepared to sail in 7 days. Last weekend PWLS was just beginning a planned maintenance period and among other projects, her flight deck was covered in tents and scaffolding in preparation for work to start on reapplying CAMREX (non-skid paint) and heat-resistant coatings (TMS – Thermal Metallic Spray) to the flight deck.….

Until now PWLS has only embarked two F-35 jets and although many rotary wing types have also been handled onboard, these were mostly for flying trials evolutions. She has never before hosted an air group and the full complement of COMUKCSG battle staff.

Embarking the air group involves taking on another 5-600 people in addition to the core ship’s company, all of which have to be safely delivered to the ship, integrated into life on board and produce effective operational outputs.

A major logistic effort is required to store ship with assorted equipment to support the air group as well as the additional food and other items transferred from QNLZ to PWLS….


As the high readiness carrier, QNLZ had an almost full load of air weapons, although this was due to be further enhanced by her 4th visit to the Northern Ammunition Jetty at Glen Mallan for another on-load before STDE24. Instead, PWLS is expected to visit Glen Mallan soon for the first time to fill her largely empty magazines while QNLZ follows later to conduct an off-load prior to docking in Rosyth.

The Phalanx Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS) were removed from PWLS while she was being repaired in Rosyth but were not replaced as she was heading to the Eastern Seaboard of the US where there is no perceived air threat.

While it may make sense for a navy short of sailors to save the need for a few weapon maintainers, this kind of practice perhaps demonstrates a peacetime mentality where the focus is the next deployment in the programme rather than a mindset that is prepared for the unexpected.

Unsurprisingly there has not been time in the last week to re-embark the 3 Phalanx mounts, set to work, certify and test them…..
ORAC is online now  
Reply
Old 10th February 2024 | 20:50
  #7289 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
so they have to go to Scotland every time the plans change? This is madness - tho it probably sounds great to the Treasury

I despair - I'm not a carrier fan but if we're going to have them surely we can afford a few more CIWS? The carriers cost billions
Asturias56 is offline  
Reply
Old 10th February 2024 | 20:55
  #7290 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,130
Likes: 326
From: Royal Berkshire
I was more astonished to see that POW was needing to have the decks re-done so soon after barely operating any F-35's let alone ever a full air-wing......!
How long would the deck last if she ever had to operate a full air-wing (if we ever have enough jets to do so) for an extended tour...or a combat tour?

GeeRam is offline  
Reply
Old 10th February 2024 | 21:17
  #7291 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Originally Posted by Asturias56
so they have to go to Scotland every time the plans change? This is madness - tho it probably sounds great to the Treasury

I despair - I'm not a carrier fan but if we're going to have them surely we can afford a few more CIWS? The carriers cost billions
Carry on despairing. At some point you'll realise your SA on anything to do with maritime is not what it should be.

The CIWS thing isn't great, but frankly fixable if there was less pressure on time

Don't forget, this is speculation. QNLZ was due to go to Rosyth for refit anyway. The issue with the shaft coupling is a question of risk appetite and might actually be sorted by a material / structural study. Still, frigates and destroyers eh?
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 08:43
  #7292 (permalink)  
Community Builder
Community Influencer
 
Joined: Oct 2018
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,213
Likes: 1,648
From: Ferrara
"a question of risk appetite"

You mean she might breakdown in the middle of the N Sea???
Asturias56 is offline  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 12:57
  #7293 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
Originally Posted by Asturias56
"a question of risk appetite"

You mean she might breakdown in the middle of the N Sea???
No. There is a material issue with the shaft coupling. That doesn't mean it's about to fail. What it means is that some investigation is required to determine the rate of deterioration to see whether that might be an issue. Or not.

In the meantime, say the ship deploys on Steadfast Defender and then "might" need to go somewhere warmer for a longer period, there's a risk choice to make. Swap the ships now and guarantee you could support that extended period, or gamble that the deterioration investigation answer is " nothing to see here".
Not_a_boffin is online now  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 14:57
  #7294 (permalink)  
30 Countries Visited
20 Anniversary
Veteran: Army
Veteran: National Guard
 
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
NAB,

Excuse me if I sound critical but if it has to be investigated....certainly it is an issue or it would not require investigation.

Perhaps assessing how severe or critical an issue it is might be more appropriate.



SASless is offline  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 15:26
  #7295 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,394
Likes: 856
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
https://news.sky.com/story/departure...-ship-13069282
FFS......
BEagle is online now  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 15:31
  #7296 (permalink)  
50 Countries Visited
5 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2019
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 803
Likes: 642
From: Cumbria
HMS Prince of Wales "fails to depart for NATO exercise ..... "

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-68268560

Another announcement " .... later on Sunday".
DuncanDoenitz is offline  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 15:33
  #7297 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 484
From: The Roman Empire
Maybe it needs a jump start?


Or perhaps a pre sailing inspection revealed.....
Biggus is online now  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 15:39
  #7298 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 252
From: London/Oxford/New York
How embarrassing! This is becoming an alarming trend...
pr00ne is offline  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 15:53
  #7299 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 122
Likes: 76
From: Number 10 No longer
This is more grist to the “Why we need more than two carriers” argument. Probably need at least 5 to have any chance of one sailing.
Gordon Brown is offline  
Reply
Old 11th February 2024 | 16:36
  #7300 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 122
Likes: 76
From: Number 10 No longer
And yes, I am aware of the irony in criticising these floating gin palaces, given my nom de plume.
Gordon Brown is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.