Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
So Main Gate not passed yet then? My PC is still down (the MOD must be responsible for repairing it) and I can't keep an eye on things.
The current deployment off of the African coast involves a flight from 849 NAS, pointing the the utility of carrier based ISTAR aircraft. Therefore MASC is ANOTHER reason we need CVF.
The current deployment off of the African coast involves a flight from 849 NAS, pointing the the utility of carrier based ISTAR aircraft. Therefore MASC is ANOTHER reason we need CVF.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cvf Istar
What it shows, WEBF, is the need for fixed-wing ISTAR off the boat - and hence CV-CVF.... with the bonus of Dave-C, to boot!
(Or are we actually stupid enough / sufficiently craven to RR/BAES to have a conventional carrier and still buy Dave-B? Answers on the back of a postcard....)
S41
(Or are we actually stupid enough / sufficiently craven to RR/BAES to have a conventional carrier and still buy Dave-B? Answers on the back of a postcard....)
S41
Thread Starter
My PC is now back - albeit in a new and very different case. One of the reasons for the delay was that the ON switch was dodgy, but the manufacturer had built the switch into the case, so a new case was needed. However, case no longer produced, so a replacement needed. Then new components........
There's a lesson there somewhere for equipment designers.
The Vela deployment does not include a carrier so whether or not it reinforces the case for a fixed wing MASC is debatable. What it does prove is how useful these capabilties are.
From Defence News:
"We made the most of the long passage down here, doing maritime security operations. We came through quite challenging waters that are becoming increasingly unstable these days. A lot of piracy, as well as people smuggling goes on off the coast of Africa so we used the ships and the aircraft we had available to build a picture of what we were coming through."
"That's what we're good at, it's what we can do and the fact that we were able to spring Argyll from the Task Group to go and do a 'live' operation, taking out a drug-runner, then come back into the Task Group, is indicative of the flexibility and contingent capability you have here. We're ready for anything."
I've included this second paragraph as it reinforces the point that ships can be detached from a task group to do other tasks, despite certain PPRuNers trying to give the impression that all the vessels in a carrier based task group are solely dedicated to the carrier.
There's a lesson there somewhere for equipment designers.
The Vela deployment does not include a carrier so whether or not it reinforces the case for a fixed wing MASC is debatable. What it does prove is how useful these capabilties are.
From Defence News:
"We made the most of the long passage down here, doing maritime security operations. We came through quite challenging waters that are becoming increasingly unstable these days. A lot of piracy, as well as people smuggling goes on off the coast of Africa so we used the ships and the aircraft we had available to build a picture of what we were coming through."
"That's what we're good at, it's what we can do and the fact that we were able to spring Argyll from the Task Group to go and do a 'live' operation, taking out a drug-runner, then come back into the Task Group, is indicative of the flexibility and contingent capability you have here. We're ready for anything."
I've included this second paragraph as it reinforces the point that ships can be detached from a task group to do other tasks, despite certain PPRuNers trying to give the impression that all the vessels in a carrier based task group are solely dedicated to the carrier.
My PC is now back - albeit in a new and very different case. One of the reasons for the delay was that the ON switch was dodgy, but the manufacturer had built the switch into the case, so a new case was needed. However, case no longer produced, so a replacement needed. Then new components........
There's a lesson there somewhere for equipment designers.
There's a lesson there somewhere for equipment designers.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've included this second paragraph as it reinforces the point that ships can be detached from a task group to do other tasks, despite certain PPRuNers trying to give the impression that all the vessels in a carrier based task group are solely dedicated to the carrier.
GBZ (no relation)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers and other animals
Pro-carrier or anti carrier is irrelevant, the questions being asked by the people who write the cheque are: do we need a carrier? can we achieve the same effect with smaller carriers? can we achieve the effect with a single carrier?
But crucially:
When did a UK aircraft carrier last make a critical contribution to mil ops. And the appoved answer is "the Falklands"
Which is still seen by many pinkos in the Treasury and FO and MOD as an embarrassing neo-colonial op. It occurred nearly 25 years ago and is viewed as ancient history
Shrinking Carrier Syndrome or Non-existent Carrier Syndrome are still on the agenda.
But crucially:
When did a UK aircraft carrier last make a critical contribution to mil ops. And the appoved answer is "the Falklands"
Which is still seen by many pinkos in the Treasury and FO and MOD as an embarrassing neo-colonial op. It occurred nearly 25 years ago and is viewed as ancient history
Shrinking Carrier Syndrome or Non-existent Carrier Syndrome are still on the agenda.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Percy
Much the same argument can be made of any item of equipment surely? Without recanting post WW2 history, the case for fleet carriers is sound and is based upon operational need, in the case of the CVF's the sortie rate has generated the present design- and this is driven by the requirement to provide brigade sized amphib ops with air cover and strike.
The scenarios may change of course, but again and again fleet carriers (50k plus) are a vital componant of the UK's defence- either in exped ops or in defensive scenarios such as the Norwegian Fjord exercises at the end of the CW.
We did need a fleet carrier in 82 of course- as a number of lost ships and dead sailors proves.
cheers
Much the same argument can be made of any item of equipment surely? Without recanting post WW2 history, the case for fleet carriers is sound and is based upon operational need, in the case of the CVF's the sortie rate has generated the present design- and this is driven by the requirement to provide brigade sized amphib ops with air cover and strike.
The scenarios may change of course, but again and again fleet carriers (50k plus) are a vital componant of the UK's defence- either in exped ops or in defensive scenarios such as the Norwegian Fjord exercises at the end of the CW.
We did need a fleet carrier in 82 of course- as a number of lost ships and dead sailors proves.
cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers
Sunk at Narvik,
I wasnt intending to join the debate on either side merely comment on some of the issues that I have heard being bounced up and down left and right.
Personally, I am probably 60-40 against carriers although I always find the fence a tad more comfortable. Get a senior Navy bod drunk (about half a shandy should do it) and they will readily blub about mortgaging the Navy's future on a carrier project that may never happen.
As I said, at the moment, I think carriers come under a bad thing but then again MOD only rarely consults me on strategic and/or procurement issues. However, the cash men are allegedly watching every move. We all might agree that there are sound mil reasons for CVF but the cash men are civies. They need to be convinced and at the moment many of them are wavering. Apparently.
I wasnt intending to join the debate on either side merely comment on some of the issues that I have heard being bounced up and down left and right.
Personally, I am probably 60-40 against carriers although I always find the fence a tad more comfortable. Get a senior Navy bod drunk (about half a shandy should do it) and they will readily blub about mortgaging the Navy's future on a carrier project that may never happen.
As I said, at the moment, I think carriers come under a bad thing but then again MOD only rarely consults me on strategic and/or procurement issues. However, the cash men are allegedly watching every move. We all might agree that there are sound mil reasons for CVF but the cash men are civies. They need to be convinced and at the moment many of them are wavering. Apparently.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stuff
ooooh oooh theres more....
Chum, the case for fleet carriers during WW2 was sound and that is part of the problem. Noone cares about WW2 procurement. Where is the requirement to deliver brigade ampib ops bearing in mind the oft repeated statement that we wont go to war again without being part of a Coalition? The same arguments that undermine Typhoon are being used to undermine the need for a CVF project that only delivers a fixed wing aircraft. The trendy case is for ISTAR, effects driven capabilities blah blah. Noone claims that 50+ ac carriers are vital for UK defence. 50+ carriers are only seen as offensive assets and in the light of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is very little stomach for the UK to be seen to be capable of meddling in other peoples affairs.
Having a fixed wing carrier would be great for prestige. I am old enough to remember the fuss caused by HMS Ark Royal being dumped. The song alone drove a nation to tears.
Chum, the case for fleet carriers during WW2 was sound and that is part of the problem. Noone cares about WW2 procurement. Where is the requirement to deliver brigade ampib ops bearing in mind the oft repeated statement that we wont go to war again without being part of a Coalition? The same arguments that undermine Typhoon are being used to undermine the need for a CVF project that only delivers a fixed wing aircraft. The trendy case is for ISTAR, effects driven capabilities blah blah. Noone claims that 50+ ac carriers are vital for UK defence. 50+ carriers are only seen as offensive assets and in the light of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is very little stomach for the UK to be seen to be capable of meddling in other peoples affairs.
Having a fixed wing carrier would be great for prestige. I am old enough to remember the fuss caused by HMS Ark Royal being dumped. The song alone drove a nation to tears.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Percy
Apologies if I came across as itching for a fight
!
I understand that the difference between what they'll build 'em for and what HMG can afford is only a couple of hundred mil, despite the MoD responding to me a while back (a FOI request) that they had the money in the budget!
Apologies if I came across as itching for a fight
!I understand that the difference between what they'll build 'em for and what HMG can afford is only a couple of hundred mil, despite the MoD responding to me a while back (a FOI request) that they had the money in the budget!
Suspicion breeds confidence
A program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9
IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.
Suspicion breeds confidence
No of course not, but I sense a genuine mood of consensus here. We've had many false dawns, hopefully this is a real one. We'll see, but I'm hopeful. Their is simply too much at stake here for this project to be cancelled IMHO.
Another question: What will replace the GR4 is it Dave or Typhoon Tranche 3? Anyone know or have an educated guess?
Another question: What will replace the GR4 is it Dave or Typhoon Tranche 3? Anyone know or have an educated guess?
Navaleye,
The last 2 Defence White papers have stated that the manned element of the GR4 replacement will be Typhoon and/or JSF.
The JSF basing study revealed a tentative plan for a wing of 2 small JSF squadrons with a unit establishment of 8 a/c a piece as the JSF element of the GR4 replacement. What is unclear is if this will be IT for the GR4 replacement or whether there will be a Typhoon element.
The last 2 Defence White papers have stated that the manned element of the GR4 replacement will be Typhoon and/or JSF.
The JSF basing study revealed a tentative plan for a wing of 2 small JSF squadrons with a unit establishment of 8 a/c a piece as the JSF element of the GR4 replacement. What is unclear is if this will be IT for the GR4 replacement or whether there will be a Typhoon element.