Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not sure about being modelled on the Magura 5, more resembles the Sea Baby. Much less stealthy and differently powered.
That is not going to work. Stores always like to keep one on the shelf and that makes only one😊
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Its the second one Tiderace has been put into uncrewed reserve, Tidespring will be put into permanent maintainence to used as parts donors to the 2 remaining ones
https://x.com/pinstripedline/status/...HhlFHGKbTPQr_A
presumably we'll be looking for allies for support as well as escort. 
Thread Starter
Another NATO carrier deployment with a multinational task group...
In first, France’s aircraft carrier to deploy under NATO command - Defense News
PARIS — France’s aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its strike group will deploy under NATO command for the first time, as the French Navy’s flagship resumes operations after interim maintenance that kept it out of action most of last year.
The Charles de Gaulle, with an escort including a French air-defense frigate, a multimission frigate and a nuclear attack submarine, will start a deployment in the Mediterranean on April 22, according to Rear Adm. Jacques Mallard, commander of the French carrier strike group. Vessels from the United States, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal will complete the escort.
While French aircraft and individual vessels have previously operated under NATO direction, the carrier strike group has until now remained under national command, according to Mallard.
Sailing under alliance command for part of the envisioned tour is meant to “show that we’re an ally who’s doing what everyone else is doing, but also to understand how the chain of command works,” Mallard said in a press briefing on April 11. “It’s a first, but it’s a logical continuation of what’s been going on until now.”
The goal is to “reinforce the defensive and deterrent posture of the alliance” as well as support operations that favor regional stability, with a focus on the central and eastern Mediterranean, according to a presentation by Mallard. The entire deployment might last around six weeks, according to the Armed Forces Ministry...
Within the NATO theatre, carrier groups are often multinational. Every one is different, for instance CdG does not have an ASW role in the same way as that ours do, so the other warships in the task group will supply the ASW helicopters as well as long range sonars.
In first, France’s aircraft carrier to deploy under NATO command - Defense News
PARIS — France’s aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle and its strike group will deploy under NATO command for the first time, as the French Navy’s flagship resumes operations after interim maintenance that kept it out of action most of last year.
The Charles de Gaulle, with an escort including a French air-defense frigate, a multimission frigate and a nuclear attack submarine, will start a deployment in the Mediterranean on April 22, according to Rear Adm. Jacques Mallard, commander of the French carrier strike group. Vessels from the United States, Spain, Greece, Italy and Portugal will complete the escort.
While French aircraft and individual vessels have previously operated under NATO direction, the carrier strike group has until now remained under national command, according to Mallard.
Sailing under alliance command for part of the envisioned tour is meant to “show that we’re an ally who’s doing what everyone else is doing, but also to understand how the chain of command works,” Mallard said in a press briefing on April 11. “It’s a first, but it’s a logical continuation of what’s been going on until now.”
The goal is to “reinforce the defensive and deterrent posture of the alliance” as well as support operations that favor regional stability, with a focus on the central and eastern Mediterranean, according to a presentation by Mallard. The entire deployment might last around six weeks, according to the Armed Forces Ministry...
Within the NATO theatre, carrier groups are often multinational. Every one is different, for instance CdG does not have an ASW role in the same way as that ours do, so the other warships in the task group will supply the ASW helicopters as well as long range sonars.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Telegraph suggests that if Type 26 frigates to be built for 🇳🇴Norway by @BAES_Maritime on the Clyde, RN would have to divert ship 3 or 4 (HMS Belfast & Birmingham) to meet Norwegian schedule.
While potentially a huge export win and Norway having the best possible ASW kit is in UK strategic interest, RN desperately needs new frigates.
https://archive.ph/2024.04.15-070203...ritise-norway/
While potentially a huge export win and Norway having the best possible ASW kit is in UK strategic interest, RN desperately needs new frigates.
https://archive.ph/2024.04.15-070203...ritise-norway/
"RN desperately needs new frigates"
I was trashed last year for making that remark - TBH the RN desperately needs just about everything these days - destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply vessels, assault ships, patrol boats...................... as forecast years ago on here the carriers have skewed things totally.
I was trashed last year for making that remark - TBH the RN desperately needs just about everything these days - destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply vessels, assault ships, patrol boats...................... as forecast years ago on here the carriers have skewed things totally.
The following users liked this post:
"RN desperately needs new frigates"
I was trashed last year for making that remark - TBH the RN desperately needs just about everything these days - destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply vessels, assault ships, patrol boats...................... as forecast years ago on here the carriers have skewed things totally.
I was trashed last year for making that remark - TBH the RN desperately needs just about everything these days - destroyers, submarines, frigates, supply vessels, assault ships, patrol boats...................... as forecast years ago on here the carriers have skewed things totally.
You still can't explain what you think these extra frigates will do. Nor can you explain why "the carriers" seem to have caused all this.
When the carriers were first mooted there was a strong view expressed by some on here that this would divert funding and manpower away from what the navy was already doing.
This has come to pass.
We have two carriers but the tasks which were carried out by destroyers & frigates are now carried out by the likes of the "Argos" or a tanker - if they are carried out at all.
You cannot deny the Navy is being hollowed out - the fact that this co0incides withe need to keep the carriers (or at least one carrier) active is no coincidence.
This has come to pass.
We have two carriers but the tasks which were carried out by destroyers & frigates are now carried out by the likes of the "Argos" or a tanker - if they are carried out at all.
You cannot deny the Navy is being hollowed out - the fact that this co0incides withe need to keep the carriers (or at least one carrier) active is no coincidence.
When the carriers were first mooted there was a strong view expressed by some on here that this would divert funding and manpower away from what the navy was already doing.
This has come to pass.
We have two carriers but the tasks which were carried out by destroyers & frigates are now carried out by the likes of the "Argos" or a tanker - if they are carried out at all.
You cannot deny the Navy is being hollowed out - the fact that this co0incides withe need to keep the carriers (or at least one carrier) active is no coincidence.
This has come to pass.
We have two carriers but the tasks which were carried out by destroyers & frigates are now carried out by the likes of the "Argos" or a tanker - if they are carried out at all.
You cannot deny the Navy is being hollowed out - the fact that this co0incides withe need to keep the carriers (or at least one carrier) active is no coincidence.
The factors that are "hollowing out" the navy as you put it (RFA pay and conditions, failure to order and build T23 replacements and amphibious doctrine) really do not have anything to do with the carriers.
The following 2 users liked this post by Not_a_boffin:
The impression that I get from various sources is that getting extra of anything runs into the problem of providing crew to actually use the extra resources be they frigates, destroyers or submarines.
But that's all down to "the carriers", obvs.
Not all - but they sure don't help........................
Thread Starter
The carriers were first mooted in 1996 - and those who were mooting on here were not around at the time. These tasks for frigates that you bang on about may not actually require a frigate, but that's largely because you don't understand what they're for.
The factors that are "hollowing out" the navy as you put it (RFA pay and conditions, failure to order and build T23 replacements and amphibious doctrine) really do not have anything to do with the carriers.
The factors that are "hollowing out" the navy as you put it (RFA pay and conditions, failure to order and build T23 replacements and amphibious doctrine) really do not have anything to do with the carriers.
The 1990s - a decade of post Cold War peace marred by armed conflict.
As I recall our existing carriers were frequently busy on operations in the Mediterranean, Adriatic, and Arabian Gulf, doing roles that can only be done by carriers. Those operations highlighted the value of carriers but also the limitations of small decks and hangars, so obviously larger ones were shown to be desirable. The aircraft that would succeed Sea Harrier/Harrier GR7/9 was also going to be physically larger requiring a larger ship. Prior to the 1990s, our carriers were busy usually on NATO tasking. The CVS/Sea King/Sea Harrier had an important part in deterring the Soviets, and in the NATO war plans.
Some people blame the carriers for everything from wet weather to wet farts - but where is the evidence?
written in large letters on every wall
If you keep the budget relatively static and then add two very large, complex ships, which require escorts, to the mix then something has to give. And that has been the rest of the navy. Sure , if Governments had added cash and resources to cover the extra cost it would have been fine but they didn't and so.
Just look and what has been disposed of, laid up and not replaced - and there aren't even plans to replace most of the lost capability and flexibility. What's left is stretched thinner and thinner.
And we can't even protect the carriers ourselves - we have to borrow escorts form everyone else
If you keep the budget relatively static and then add two very large, complex ships, which require escorts, to the mix then something has to give. And that has been the rest of the navy. Sure , if Governments had added cash and resources to cover the extra cost it would have been fine but they didn't and so.
Just look and what has been disposed of, laid up and not replaced - and there aren't even plans to replace most of the lost capability and flexibility. What's left is stretched thinner and thinner.
And we can't even protect the carriers ourselves - we have to borrow escorts form everyone else
Last edited by Asturias56; 22nd Apr 2024 at 07:50.
Except its not though, is it?
RFA pay and conditions? Nope.
Failure to order T23 replacements? Nope. Also, if you track the spend on the carrier build, the vast majority peaked pre-2017. T26 and T31 spend has only ramped up post 2020, so not there.
Amphibiosity? The fact that Future Commando Force is not coherent with current amphibious shipping seems to be passing you by.
RFA pay and conditions? Nope.
Failure to order T23 replacements? Nope. Also, if you track the spend on the carrier build, the vast majority peaked pre-2017. T26 and T31 spend has only ramped up post 2020, so not there.
Amphibiosity? The fact that Future Commando Force is not coherent with current amphibious shipping seems to be passing you by.
The following users liked this post: