Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Joined: Jul 2008
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 175
From: Australia OZ
but this morse code was useful in the BIRDIE world for all those ADFs when in a Vampire or Sea Venom (not so much) at NAS Nowra.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 10th July 2024 at 08:27. Reason: Colours & Flashing
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 376
From: Hampshire
Ninthace - I had forgotten the 'interesting content', it reminded me of the soft porn background used on OHP slides to keep us awake in Supply and Sec. lessons - I am sure they are long gone.
Slow news day in Pompey Royal Navy: HMS Prince of Wales to be turned around in Portsmouth Harbour - when
Slow news day in Pompey Royal Navy: HMS Prince of Wales to be turned around in Portsmouth Harbour - when
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 89
Likes: 19
From: Penryn, Cornwall
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,510
Likes: 7,255
From: Peripatetic
https://archive.is/2024.07.15-092342...c-shipbuilder/
Reeves warned by civil servants against bailing out Titanic shipbuilder
Chancellor to weigh up Harland and Wolff rescue amid concerns over post-Brexit rules
Reeves warned by civil servants against bailing out Titanic shipbuilder
Chancellor to weigh up Harland and Wolff rescue amid concerns over post-Brexit rules
Joined: May 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 314
Likes: 254
From: uk
With a defence review looming and WW3 forecast within 5 years by some esteemed military ‘experts ‘ should we not bite the bullet ,cut our losses and bin ( sell off ) our super expensive carriers ?
if , heaven forbid , WW3 ever starts it will all be over in days and the carriers mission of world wide power projection ,keeping sea lanes open etc will not apply. ( in any case putting these expensive assets in vulnerable locations would be very risky)
Defending Taiwan is not our TOP priority!
Their role in deterring WW3 is debatable.
their role in showing UK off to the world is out of date - we no longer have an empire!
carriers will not be much use defending Ukraines sovereignty if a peace settlement is ever finally achieved.
All our scanty underfunded spending should be focused more on direct defence of the homeland such as protection against hypersonic missiles, drones and cyber attack.
any money left over should be spent directly ,with our NATO allies ,on forces directly adjoining Russias borders to deter any further expansion/aggression.
if , heaven forbid , WW3 ever starts it will all be over in days and the carriers mission of world wide power projection ,keeping sea lanes open etc will not apply. ( in any case putting these expensive assets in vulnerable locations would be very risky)
Defending Taiwan is not our TOP priority!
Their role in deterring WW3 is debatable.
their role in showing UK off to the world is out of date - we no longer have an empire!
carriers will not be much use defending Ukraines sovereignty if a peace settlement is ever finally achieved.
All our scanty underfunded spending should be focused more on direct defence of the homeland such as protection against hypersonic missiles, drones and cyber attack.
any money left over should be spent directly ,with our NATO allies ,on forces directly adjoining Russias borders to deter any further expansion/aggression.
Last edited by mahogany bob; 16th July 2024 at 07:34.
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 376
From: Hampshire
On a lighter note the KHM Portsmouth has published a notice referring to ASV trials within the dockyard.1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN by the King’s Harbour Master Portsmouth that Autonomous Surface Vessel trials will be conducted within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth over the period 23 - 26 July 24. These trials will be conducted during daylight hours only.
2. A NavyX APAC Autonomous Surface Vessel (ASV) will be carrying out sea trials in 2 Basin, the approach channels to both Portchester and Fareham, the main Portsmouth approach channel and Man – of – War anchorages.
3. Trials will be conducted within 2 Basin on 23 July AM, Portchester / Tipner approach channel on 23 July PM, Fareham approach channel on 24 July, and then exit through the main Portsmouth approach channel to complete a circuit around the Man - of - War anchorages and back through the main Portsmouth approach channel on 25 July.
4. The designated trials period will be from 0900 – 1700 daily and include the APAC operating in Remote/Autonomous Mode. Commencing and ending from a position 2 cables south of the GODDARDS BEACONS on 23, 24 and 25 July. (Fri 26 July is designated a trials spare day.)
5. On 25 July during the trial run out of the harbour entrance to the Man – of – War anchorage, and on return, the APAC will be escorted by XV PATRICK BLACKETT (PTBK) and a safety and support boat. All three vessels will exit the harbour via the main shipping channel to 4 Bar Buoy then head to Man –of- War anchorage number 1. The APAC will then complete a circuit of the Man – of – War anchorages returning to anchorage number 1 and then all three vessels will return through the harbour entrance using the main channel from 4 Bar Buoy to a position 2 cables south of the GODDARDS BEACONS.
6. Trials staff will request approval from KHM Harbour Control, when the autonomous trial runs are to start and notify KHM Harbour Control at the end of each run.
...
9. All trials vessels will conform to the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and Portsmouth Harbour Regulations, including speed limits at all times.
View notice online
2. A NavyX APAC Autonomous Surface Vessel (ASV) will be carrying out sea trials in 2 Basin, the approach channels to both Portchester and Fareham, the main Portsmouth approach channel and Man – of – War anchorages.
3. Trials will be conducted within 2 Basin on 23 July AM, Portchester / Tipner approach channel on 23 July PM, Fareham approach channel on 24 July, and then exit through the main Portsmouth approach channel to complete a circuit around the Man - of - War anchorages and back through the main Portsmouth approach channel on 25 July.
4. The designated trials period will be from 0900 – 1700 daily and include the APAC operating in Remote/Autonomous Mode. Commencing and ending from a position 2 cables south of the GODDARDS BEACONS on 23, 24 and 25 July. (Fri 26 July is designated a trials spare day.)
5. On 25 July during the trial run out of the harbour entrance to the Man – of – War anchorage, and on return, the APAC will be escorted by XV PATRICK BLACKETT (PTBK) and a safety and support boat. All three vessels will exit the harbour via the main shipping channel to 4 Bar Buoy then head to Man –of- War anchorage number 1. The APAC will then complete a circuit of the Man – of – War anchorages returning to anchorage number 1 and then all three vessels will return through the harbour entrance using the main channel from 4 Bar Buoy to a position 2 cables south of the GODDARDS BEACONS.
6. Trials staff will request approval from KHM Harbour Control, when the autonomous trial runs are to start and notify KHM Harbour Control at the end of each run.
...
9. All trials vessels will conform to the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) and Portsmouth Harbour Regulations, including speed limits at all times.
View notice online
Joined: May 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 314
Likes: 254
From: uk
Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine (yet ) are/were not World Wars
when all the doomsters are forecasting WW3 in 5 years they are talking about the BIG one!
I think / hope that they are just rattling the cage to get more arms spending ?
although a lot of (mainly ex) senior ( mainly Army) officers are a little on the barking mad side ! As is Putin!
when all the doomsters are forecasting WW3 in 5 years they are talking about the BIG one!
I think / hope that they are just rattling the cage to get more arms spending ?
although a lot of (mainly ex) senior ( mainly Army) officers are a little on the barking mad side ! As is Putin!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,967
Likes: 100
From: Devon
mahogany bob
With a defence review looming and WW3 forecast within 5 years by some esteemed military ‘experts ‘ should we not bite the bullet ,cut our losses and bin ( sell off ) our super expensive carriers ?
No - you are aware of the value of the long range capabilities that they provide? The carrier is essential to winning (or deterring) a conflict at sea at any distance from friendly air bases - that includes the Norwegian Sea, parts of the Mediterranean, and places such as the Red Sea, as shown by current events.
if , heaven forbid , WW3 ever starts it will all be over in days and the carriers mission of world wide power projection ,keeping sea lanes open etc will not apply. ( in any case putting these expensive assets in vulnerable locations would be very risky)
Not as risky as airfields, headquarter buildings, and industrial facilities providing fixed single points of failure. Are you assuming that the war goes nuclear? Or are you assuming that their will be no need to move forces within the European theatre - forces that will have to move by sea.
Defending Taiwan is not our TOP priority!
Who said it was?
Their role in deterring WW3 is debatable.
Perhaps, but NATO relies on deterrence, and carriers (not just ours) play a major part. See Exercise Steadfast Defender 24 for an example.
their role in showing UK off to the world is out of date - we no longer have an empire!
Surely the lack of Empire makes the carrier more relevant?
carriers will not be much use defending Ukraines sovereignty if a peace settlement is ever finally achieved.
Well spotted - you may be aware of the Montreux Convention. But what about everywhere else?
All our scanty underfunded spending should be focused more on direct defence of the homeland such as protection against hypersonic missiles, drones and cyber attack.
any money left over should be spent directly ,with our NATO allies ,on forces directly adjoining Russias borders to deter any further expansion/aggression.
Where are these hypersonic missiles going to be fired from? The Russians make a big thing about submarine fired ones. Also do you think we can maintain large garrisons in the Nordics and the Baltic States? Fortunately a carrier group can not only track and engage the Russian submarines, it can also splash at least some of the missiles (Russian hypersonic weapons have been used in Ukraine and have been far from undefeatable), it can also protect the maritime movement of forces in a crisis.
Back to Exercise Steadfast Defender 24:
HMS Prince of Wales can be seen from 2:15:
In the North Sea Exercise Joint Warrior has been taking place. The exercises involved 14 countries with nearly 50 vessels. This includes aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, patrol vessels, minehunters, submarines, and auxiliary ships. There were 100 fast jets, 30 helicopters, and various surveillance, patrol, and air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Their mission? Within the Steadfast Defender exercise scenario, they had to dominate the seas and the skies in the high north so that amphibious landings could be executed.
NATO task groups come together off Norway coast - Royal Navy - 14 March 24
Two potent task groups proved their strength to defend Arctic waters and shorelines from threats when they came together as part of NATO exercises.
The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, was joined by a NATO Amphibious Task Group and a range of aircraft off the coast of Norway as part of Exercise Nordic Response.
The formation of more than 10 ships from eight nations gave the men and women on board the chance to practise close manoeuvres - overcoming language barriers and different ways of operating at sea.
In a show of might for NATO and it partners, the exercise allowed the vessels and their aircraft to demonstrate their ability to defend allied territory while simultaneously defending themselves from potential enemies.
See also a dedicated thread from another forum: 1977 US Congress Report: The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW - due to Maths/Physics/Geography)
With a defence review looming and WW3 forecast within 5 years by some esteemed military ‘experts ‘ should we not bite the bullet ,cut our losses and bin ( sell off ) our super expensive carriers ?
No - you are aware of the value of the long range capabilities that they provide? The carrier is essential to winning (or deterring) a conflict at sea at any distance from friendly air bases - that includes the Norwegian Sea, parts of the Mediterranean, and places such as the Red Sea, as shown by current events.
if , heaven forbid , WW3 ever starts it will all be over in days and the carriers mission of world wide power projection ,keeping sea lanes open etc will not apply. ( in any case putting these expensive assets in vulnerable locations would be very risky)
Not as risky as airfields, headquarter buildings, and industrial facilities providing fixed single points of failure. Are you assuming that the war goes nuclear? Or are you assuming that their will be no need to move forces within the European theatre - forces that will have to move by sea.
Defending Taiwan is not our TOP priority!
Who said it was?
Their role in deterring WW3 is debatable.
Perhaps, but NATO relies on deterrence, and carriers (not just ours) play a major part. See Exercise Steadfast Defender 24 for an example.
their role in showing UK off to the world is out of date - we no longer have an empire!
Surely the lack of Empire makes the carrier more relevant?
carriers will not be much use defending Ukraines sovereignty if a peace settlement is ever finally achieved.
Well spotted - you may be aware of the Montreux Convention. But what about everywhere else?
All our scanty underfunded spending should be focused more on direct defence of the homeland such as protection against hypersonic missiles, drones and cyber attack.
any money left over should be spent directly ,with our NATO allies ,on forces directly adjoining Russias borders to deter any further expansion/aggression.
Where are these hypersonic missiles going to be fired from? The Russians make a big thing about submarine fired ones. Also do you think we can maintain large garrisons in the Nordics and the Baltic States? Fortunately a carrier group can not only track and engage the Russian submarines, it can also splash at least some of the missiles (Russian hypersonic weapons have been used in Ukraine and have been far from undefeatable), it can also protect the maritime movement of forces in a crisis.
Back to Exercise Steadfast Defender 24:
HMS Prince of Wales can be seen from 2:15:
In the North Sea Exercise Joint Warrior has been taking place. The exercises involved 14 countries with nearly 50 vessels. This includes aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, patrol vessels, minehunters, submarines, and auxiliary ships. There were 100 fast jets, 30 helicopters, and various surveillance, patrol, and air-to-air refuelling aircraft. Their mission? Within the Steadfast Defender exercise scenario, they had to dominate the seas and the skies in the high north so that amphibious landings could be executed.
NATO task groups come together off Norway coast - Royal Navy - 14 March 24
Two potent task groups proved their strength to defend Arctic waters and shorelines from threats when they came together as part of NATO exercises.
The UK Carrier Strike Group, led by HMS Prince of Wales, was joined by a NATO Amphibious Task Group and a range of aircraft off the coast of Norway as part of Exercise Nordic Response.
The formation of more than 10 ships from eight nations gave the men and women on board the chance to practise close manoeuvres - overcoming language barriers and different ways of operating at sea.
In a show of might for NATO and it partners, the exercise allowed the vessels and their aircraft to demonstrate their ability to defend allied territory while simultaneously defending themselves from potential enemies.
See also a dedicated thread from another forum: 1977 US Congress Report: The US Sea Control Mission (carriers needed in the Atlantic for Air Defence and ASW - due to Maths/Physics/Geography)
Joined: May 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 314
Likes: 254
From: uk
Branch Fanatic
your support for the RN and amazing detailed knowledge is well respected ( my original posting from Valley was to Buccs ,probably on Ark Royal ,until it was cancelled when Denis Healey withdrew his support for carriers back in the 60s )
BUT there is a current debate going on in the States over the viability of carriers in the future and we do seem to be devoid of essential items / manpower for the realistic defence of the UK so it is reasonable to continue the debate over where to best spend the money.
A big reason to keep the carriers of course is the vast amount of money already spent.
your support for the RN and amazing detailed knowledge is well respected ( my original posting from Valley was to Buccs ,probably on Ark Royal ,until it was cancelled when Denis Healey withdrew his support for carriers back in the 60s )
BUT there is a current debate going on in the States over the viability of carriers in the future and we do seem to be devoid of essential items / manpower for the realistic defence of the UK so it is reasonable to continue the debate over where to best spend the money.
A big reason to keep the carriers of course is the vast amount of money already spent.
Joined: Apr 2010
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 958
Likes: 1,239
From: Herefordshire
Branch Fanatic
your support for the RN and amazing detailed knowledge is well respected ( my original posting from Valley was to Buccs ,probably on Ark Royal ,until it was cancelled when Denis Healey withdrew his support for carriers back in the 60s )
BUT there is a current debate going on in the States over the viability of carriers in the future and we do seem to be devoid of essential items / manpower for the realistic defence of the UK so it is reasonable to continue the debate over where to best spend the money.
A big reason to keep the carriers of course is the vast amount of money already spent.
your support for the RN and amazing detailed knowledge is well respected ( my original posting from Valley was to Buccs ,probably on Ark Royal ,until it was cancelled when Denis Healey withdrew his support for carriers back in the 60s )
BUT there is a current debate going on in the States over the viability of carriers in the future and we do seem to be devoid of essential items / manpower for the realistic defence of the UK so it is reasonable to continue the debate over where to best spend the money.
A big reason to keep the carriers of course is the vast amount of money already spent.
Joined: Dec 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 484
From: The Roman Empire
A carrier is not an end in itself, it is merely a means to an end. It's a means of projecting air power. An on task carrier group, fully equipped, fully supported, is a useful, albeit very expensive, asset to have. But we don't have that.
We have two carriers, making availability uncertain. They also seem to have reliability issues - and please don't tell me they're teething troubles given how long they've been in the water.
They don't have an adequate air group. We don't have a credible AEW capacity. We are short of F-35s, and they are a joint, not RN only, asset (A debate I won't get into here). The F-35s we do have are no doubt double, triple or quadruple hatred, and as the primary air asset in a high threat environment, may be required elsewhere. Their V/STOL capability would also enable them to operate from remote and/or austere LAND locations. We are short of ASW helicopter airframes, in terms of a carrier based ASW hunting group. Stripping training units to equip a carrier air group for a two week exercise is not the same as being able to run sustained combat operations.
We are short of frigates, destroyers and SSNs to protect the carrier itself - and don't tell me other NATO countries will provide them.
We are massively short of support units to keep a carrier group on station, replenishing fuel, ordnance, etc.
We seem to have adopted the approach of buying the carriers and then hoping we can find everything else needed to make them viable downstream.
So, while I'm not necessarily advocating scrapping the carriers, I do feel it's a discussion worth having. The current make do and mend situation is neither one thing or the other, and I don't think it's kidding (deterring) anyone, except maybe a few UK politicians.
We have two carriers, making availability uncertain. They also seem to have reliability issues - and please don't tell me they're teething troubles given how long they've been in the water.
They don't have an adequate air group. We don't have a credible AEW capacity. We are short of F-35s, and they are a joint, not RN only, asset (A debate I won't get into here). The F-35s we do have are no doubt double, triple or quadruple hatred, and as the primary air asset in a high threat environment, may be required elsewhere. Their V/STOL capability would also enable them to operate from remote and/or austere LAND locations. We are short of ASW helicopter airframes, in terms of a carrier based ASW hunting group. Stripping training units to equip a carrier air group for a two week exercise is not the same as being able to run sustained combat operations.
We are short of frigates, destroyers and SSNs to protect the carrier itself - and don't tell me other NATO countries will provide them.
We are massively short of support units to keep a carrier group on station, replenishing fuel, ordnance, etc.
We seem to have adopted the approach of buying the carriers and then hoping we can find everything else needed to make them viable downstream.
So, while I'm not necessarily advocating scrapping the carriers, I do feel it's a discussion worth having. The current make do and mend situation is neither one thing or the other, and I don't think it's kidding (deterring) anyone, except maybe a few UK politicians.
Last edited by Biggus; 19th July 2024 at 13:54.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 86
From: England
So the UK carriers are a great asset, but currently only viable if protected in the Irish Sea or perhaps N Sea.
At least they should contribute to UK air defence, perhaps releasing some aircraft to the overseas fixed-based projection of air power.
If so then the UK aspirations should be cut back proportionately to the locations of fixed bases.
At least they should contribute to UK air defence, perhaps releasing some aircraft to the overseas fixed-based projection of air power.
If so then the UK aspirations should be cut back proportionately to the locations of fixed bases.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
A carrier is not an end in itself, it is merely a means to an end. It's a means of projecting air power. An on task carrier group, fully equipped, fully supported, is a useful, albeit very expensive, asset to have. But we don't have that.
We have two carriers, making availability uncertain. They also seem to have reliability issues - and please don't tell me they're teething troubles given how long they've been in the water.
They don't have an adequate air group. We don't have a credible AEW capacity. We are short of F-35s, and they are a joint, not RN only, asset (A debate I won't get into here). The F-35s we do have are no doubt double, triple or quadruple hatred, and as the primary air asset in a high threat environment, may be required elsewhere. Their V/STOL capability would also enable them to operate from remote LAND locations. We are short of ASW helicopter airframe, in terms of a carrier based ASW hunting group. Stripping training units to equip a carrier air group for a two week exercise is not the same as being able to run sustained combat operations.
We are short of frigates, destroyers and SSNs to protect the carrier itself - and don't tell me other NATO countries will provide them.
We are massively short of support units to keep a carrier group on station, replenishing fuel, ordnance, etc.
We seem to have adopted the approach of buying the carriers and then hoping we can find everything else needed to make them viable downstream.
So, while I'm not necessarily advocating scrapping the carriers, I do feel it's a discussion worth having. The current make do and mend situation is neither one thing or the other, and I don't think it's kidding (deterring) anyone.
We have two carriers, making availability uncertain. They also seem to have reliability issues - and please don't tell me they're teething troubles given how long they've been in the water.
They don't have an adequate air group. We don't have a credible AEW capacity. We are short of F-35s, and they are a joint, not RN only, asset (A debate I won't get into here). The F-35s we do have are no doubt double, triple or quadruple hatred, and as the primary air asset in a high threat environment, may be required elsewhere. Their V/STOL capability would also enable them to operate from remote LAND locations. We are short of ASW helicopter airframe, in terms of a carrier based ASW hunting group. Stripping training units to equip a carrier air group for a two week exercise is not the same as being able to run sustained combat operations.
We are short of frigates, destroyers and SSNs to protect the carrier itself - and don't tell me other NATO countries will provide them.
We are massively short of support units to keep a carrier group on station, replenishing fuel, ordnance, etc.
We seem to have adopted the approach of buying the carriers and then hoping we can find everything else needed to make them viable downstream.
So, while I'm not necessarily advocating scrapping the carriers, I do feel it's a discussion worth having. The current make do and mend situation is neither one thing or the other, and I don't think it's kidding (deterring) anyone.
The "shortage" of F35s is a result of numerous factors, but is slowly being addressed (OCU outputting more aircrew, 809NAS standing up).
Won't argue about the AEW - although there is a difference between the effectiveness of Crowsnest against the requirement it was procured against and the somewhat esoteric "new" threats being postulated.
ASW frames - yep, concur.
Frigates, destroyers and support ships all under contract and in progress for new build or upgrade. It would be somewhat perverse to bin the lynchpin just as the rest comes to fruition. The naval requirement - as in what's its there for - is at least significantly clearer than the rationale for a large standing army.
Joined: Feb 2015
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 1,758
Likes: 358
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
As an American and a dedicated Anglophile, I must admit a deep sadness as I witness the collapse of "this royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle." Do not despair, my cousins, for it is evident that the United States of America is closely following your downward spiral. I hope we are able to pull out before we are irretrievably broken. There is such glory and strength and alliance of deep and abiding friendship between the U.K. and the U.S.A.
- Ed
- Ed
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 807
Likes: 425
From: Portsmouth
BAOR (and RAFG for that matter) were for a very different geopolitical situation.
The maritime threat is a lot closer to us.