Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[ORAC]

I see it costs almost $3 billion just for a splash and go for the Nimitz class. And nearly $600 million just to plan for it...

[swampy_lynx_puke]

Originally Posted by WE Branch Fanatic

On a different note...
On the 845 NAS Photo Gallery there are some pictures of Sea Kings on and around the quayside in Beirut. Does anyone know what they did?
Am I right in thinking the evacuation could have still gone ahead if there had been no access to Beirut port? The six Junglies and three Chinooks could have pick up entitled persons, and smaller ports (or even beaches) could have been used by Bulwark's landing craft?

Thread Creep Warning - Red

The evacuation could have been done by air, however it takes a long time to shift 9,000 (+/- 5,000) pax - the initial planning figures, (let alone civvies) by helo. Don't forget that the CVS also had some Merlin embarked too (plus the Lynx on the DDFF - ha, ha). The ships would still be used as lily-pads/reception points, to reduce turnaround time. BULW's landing craft could be used if required, but same-same for capacity. These options were all considered and maintained as contingencies. In the end, putting ships alongside was the easiest and safest option that the Israelies kindly let us conduct. BULW was ideal for this since her vehicle deck door removed the need for brows etc. Note that the T42s also took a large number over several runs. The helos were ideal for the insertion of teams to assist in the processing of entitled personnel and for high priority pax.
Perhaps the real question is whether this could have been achieved in a non-permissive environment. Answers on a postcard (it need not be a big one, 2 letters required)

[NURSE]

its fairly academic the new carriers will be white elephants for a very basic reason what will fly of them?

In 2012 when Mrs Clinton is elected JSF stvol will be cancelled.

[Widger]

NURSE,

That will be excellent news because then we will have no option but to go with Dave C...or is it B?

[Not_a_boffin]

Dave Charlie (or at a push Plastic Bug E) or (whisper it very quietly in case that bl00dy Frenchie's about) if all else fails R*****..........

I believe it's called having a fallback option - something that is generally thought of as a very good idea, but appears to be singularly missing in the case of CVF-STOVL & Dave Bravo......

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Slightly off topic.......

The first of the three Type 23 frigates axed as a result of the Hoon review has been handed over to the Chilean Navy. See this from the RN website.

Another tangent - Instead of trying to give a Mines Counter Measures role to frigates and destroyers in future, why not build vessels that combine Mine Hunting with patrol duties like the Danish SF300? We already use Hunt class MCMVs for patrol duties, why not take it a step further without compromising the capabilities of major surface combatants? To modify a frigate/destroyer for a low magnetic signature, low levels of acoustic noise, hardening against underwater blast, dynamic positioning, ultra precise positioning etc would be very difficult and expensive, but feasible with a smaller vessel.

The hull is constructed of an FRP (fibre-reinforced plastic) sandwich with a cellular core between outer and inner FRP laminates. This material reduces weight and maintenance, since it is non-magnetic. Electro-magnetic compatibility (EMC) in the non-metallic hull is achieved by sprayed layers of zinc and shielding of cable glands and penetrating non-metallic pipes and ducts.


Doing that with a Type 45 size hull would probably break the bank!

Additionally they could perform MIOPS and other low intensity duties, since frigates and destroyers are in short supply.

Back to the carriers..........

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

WE Branch Fanatic

You're probably not really that far off Thread. With the persistent strangle hold of the Treasury and the lamentable level of indifference shown by Parliament and the general public, no new money will be found and further "savings" will be expected. The CVFs have the potential to so distort the Naval budget that surface combatants will be in insufficient numbers to fulfil the needs of a maritime nation.

[Wrathmonk]

Isn't/wasn't a decision on the future of the CVF due soon?

[Sunk at Narvik]

Sounds like the rumours are true- just nicked this from Rob on the Warships1 board:

"UK carrier project poised for go-ahead
The UK's Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) programme has been given the green light by the Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) top-level Defence Management Board (DMB): a...
24-Nov-2006

Link: jdw.janes.com/public/jdw/index.shtml "

[Wrathmonk]

Sunk

Couldn't find anything to do with CVF via your link - probably me being a muppet or its no longer "news". Do you have a link to the actual article?

W

[Navaleye]

Only if you have $$$ for a Janes sub. This does not mean its passed MG yet, it just means its survived initial scrutiny and the process continues.

[BillHicksRules]

Here is a question for all in here.

Who thinks that the MOD would continue with CVF from here on in if the French drop out?

Cheers

BHR

[Navaleye]

I do since the UK project is costed around two hulls not three and the French will have paid 1/3 of the design costs so far.

[FormerFlake]

Anyone claim to have started this? Any one agree?

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/NavalWarfare/

[Sunk at Narvik]

Wrath,

Odd. It was there earlier honest guv! Janes must refresh their page often.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Navaleye

I do since the UK project is costed around two hulls not three and the French will have paid 1/3 of the design costs so far.

I do too, but not because the foul & most foreign have paid 1/3 of the design costs. They've chucked in £100M and are reportedly livid when they actually saw what they had paid for. Design costs currently stand somewhere between £450 and £500M already - there is a fair old way to go yet to complete the design, so I'm told.....

We have come too far to bin it now. The design (such as it is) is very good from an aviation PoV - changing it won't help. We need to crack on, get it done and then NEVER get to such a potmess again. The procurement process needs a complete overhaul - write a simple (knowledgeable) spec, get it approved, contract for it and get on with it. Not for the first time Smart Procurement is proving anything but.......

[BillHicksRules]

It is nice to see the unfounded optimism and rampant racism is not dead on Pprune

[Biggus]

We are about to enter 2007 (only 3.5 gov working weeks left), does anyone still serioulsy believe a 2012 entry date for the first carrier (assuming the project continues)? Even if it is 31 Dec 2012 at 23.59!

[Navaleye]

Biggus,

Illustrious is being run on to 2013 and Ark Royal to 2015, which realistically is the earliest that the QE will enter service.

[Not_a_boffin]

Originally Posted by Biggus

We are about to enter 2007 (only 3.5 gov working weeks left), does anyone still serioulsy believe a 2012 entry date for the first carrier (assuming the project continues)? Even if it is 31 Dec 2012 at 23.59!

Not a cat in hells chance. Even if his Toniness says go on Xmas Eve, there is now too little shipbuilding capacity left in the country to get it done on time. Note use of the phrase "in time", they can be built quite easily with the existing capacity, but not to Tony's timeline. The limit is actually the steel production (sub-units & units) capacity available now in UK, combined with the ability to achieve a high level of outfit for the upper hull blocks (ie the 40% not allocated in the carve-up several months ago). The steel panels can be sourced from Poland or Romania (and good quality work it would be too), but to make it efficient, erected units would have be highly outfitted which is much harder to achieve through out-sourcing.