Future Carrier (Including Costs)
In times long gone, a set of "LTC Instructions" were issued annually, around February. This system died in the early 90s. In my experience, a great majority of funding problems on projects could have been avoided if this old process had been followed. And because it is a well known process, which has never actually been rescinded but just fallen into disuse, it is very easy to prove what I say simply by constructing a dummy "LTC" bid. But who am I to contradict MoD, who say it is unnecessary attention to detail and a waste of time? (Tell that to anyone who has had to leave expensive new kit behind when deployed, because they haven't been trained how to use it).
I know this is way off thread, but it seems to me that someone needs to see the wood for the trees here. The maniacs have run wild and the asylum is a mess. It would seem rather inappropriate to deal with this one room at a time. We need to get the maniacs back under lock and key, repair the leaking roof and broken windows etc, before redecorating our particular room! If that room is where the ordering and equipping of major items like carriers and their aircraft is done, just hang on, we have to ensure that there will be effectively manned armed forces around to operate them at the time!
Suspicion breeds confidence
F-35
I was trawling through public data on the F35 and it seems that in an air to air role, its maximum loadout could be 12 AMRAAM and 2 ASRAAM. One or two of those loitering above your CVBG will be good for morale. 
I hate to disillusion you Naval Eye, but I suspect that an additional '1' has crept in there. Even if t'were true, they'd be on external pylons which would put the mockers on a large part of the alleged OCA/DCA capability of Dave.........
I know, lets ask if Meteor is planned for integration in the weapons bays......
I know, lets ask if Meteor is planned for integration in the weapons bays......
Suspicion breeds confidence
I didn't say it was practical, but in theory if you hung an AMRAAM on every hardpoint capable of taking one (internal and external), you reach 12. I've seen a picture of an F18 with ten AMRAAMS.
Meteor has been integrated on JSF models, but only externally. Integration is not a KPP in the requirement, but I suppose you could carry it externally. Of course then you're not stealthy and will have to fight through a barrage of R-77s from a Flanker that's faster than you, but what do you expect for a mere $150 m a pop?
I've seen a picture of an F/A-18 with a vast number of AMRAAMs too. How far/fast does it go with them?
I've seen a picture of an F/A-18 with a vast number of AMRAAMs too. How far/fast does it go with them?
Thread Starter
Whether F35 carries two AMRAAMs or twelve, it will carry more than Harrier GR7/9. It will also have a radar, unlike GR7/9. Maybe even a gun.......
Therefore the sooner we get CVF and F35 the better, and the huge capability gap left by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier will finally be filled. Also they will help make up for the capability lost as a result of downsizing the Fleet.
From the BBC Yesterday - Record Investment for Shipyards
On Monday, it confirmed it had taken on 550 new staff in 2006 to cope with orders it has on its books.
I am unaware of any new orders so this must mean CVF, yes?
Therefore the sooner we get CVF and F35 the better, and the huge capability gap left by the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier will finally be filled. Also they will help make up for the capability lost as a result of downsizing the Fleet.
From the BBC Yesterday - Record Investment for Shipyards
On Monday, it confirmed it had taken on 550 new staff in 2006 to cope with orders it has on its books.
I am unaware of any new orders so this must mean CVF, yes?
WEBF
Surely even you cannot believe that had the nod been given for CVF there would have been a little bit of news about it? Tone and his croanies will want to take whatever credit they can, right down to every job created. On the other hand perhaps they're just waiting for a good day to bury bad news....again!
Lets see, I believe MOD HQ shuts up shop this Thursday. Perhaps there will be a "leak" on Friday?
W
Surely even you cannot believe that had the nod been given for CVF there would have been a little bit of news about it? Tone and his croanies will want to take whatever credit they can, right down to every job created. On the other hand perhaps they're just waiting for a good day to bury bad news....again!
Lets see, I believe MOD HQ shuts up shop this Thursday. Perhaps there will be a "leak" on Friday?
W
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New orders....
well, there is the DAS for the Eurofighter, SUAVE, that Greek long range radar thingy, Bradley upgrade, M113 upgrade, STANDARD missile upgrade, ....there must be some more "orders" BAE have received recently.....
well, there is the DAS for the Eurofighter, SUAVE, that Greek long range radar thingy, Bradley upgrade, M113 upgrade, STANDARD missile upgrade, ....there must be some more "orders" BAE have received recently.....
BigAnd ExpensiveShips do have some new orders. The T45 manufacture programme is mid-way through, so they'll be taking on additional outfit trades, and possibly commissioning engineers. They also have a contract to design (though not build) two light frigates for Malaysia - though God help them if they turn out like the Brunei ships (still not accepted last I heard).
Thread Starter
Some interesting links that seem to relate to CVF. Firstly, from ARRSE a thread on F35 and technology transfer.
Britain threatens to withdraw from JSF again!
Another place where these issues are discussed is the Royal Navy ezboard. You may find these next two particularly interesting at the moment:
Drayson needs MIS commitment before CVF main gate
Back to Basics
Perhaps Santa will bring something to help get CVF past main gate, built and into service?
Britain threatens to withdraw from JSF again!
Another place where these issues are discussed is the Royal Navy ezboard. You may find these next two particularly interesting at the moment:
Drayson needs MIS commitment before CVF main gate
Back to Basics
Perhaps Santa will bring something to help get CVF past main gate, built and into service?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another retired Senior Officer speaks out against the attitude of MoD.
Admiral: 'tinpot' armed services
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:37am GMT 24/12/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...24/narmy24.xml
Britain's beleaguered Armed Forces are in danger of being turned by the Government into a "tinpot gendarmerie" incapable of defending UK interests, according to one of the country's top military figures.
Defence cuts and financial infighting at the Ministry of Defence are threatening Britain's status as a world power, said Admiral Sir Alan West in a blistering attack on Labour's defence policy.
Sir Alan West: Government is risking British security
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he said the Government was risking the future security of British interests by reshaping the armed forces to wage long-term "anti-terror" campaigns in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir Alan, 58, said the MoD was behaving "like these tinpot countries" that fail to invest in major equipment programmes, and spend defence budgets on running rather than developing their armed forces. "That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.
In 10 years' time, the threat facing the UK could be something "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia". He added: "All we could be left with is an Armed Forces that is effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope that no one gets to us."
Sir Alan's comments follow recent criticisms of Government treatment of the Army from General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, the present and former heads of the Army respectively.
advertisement
The latest attack comes amid speculation that the MoD is about to delay or even cancel its "Carrier Strike" programme to build two aircraft carriers by 2015.
Sir Alan, who retired as head of the Royal Navy this year, said he now feared that the £3.5 billion he had ring-fenced for the project was under threat from MoD officials trying to "undermine the programme" so that the money could be used elsewhere in the cash-strapped department.
He said: "The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it. There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital."
Sir Alan also criticised the Army for not "going through the pain" of addressing its own financial problems in the way the Navy had done over the past few years. He described the Army's attitude towards cost-cutting as "atrocious" and accused senior officers of attempting to "raid" the Forces' overall equipment budget in an effort to solve its own financial problems.
Admiral: 'tinpot' armed services
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:37am GMT 24/12/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...24/narmy24.xml
Britain's beleaguered Armed Forces are in danger of being turned by the Government into a "tinpot gendarmerie" incapable of defending UK interests, according to one of the country's top military figures.
Defence cuts and financial infighting at the Ministry of Defence are threatening Britain's status as a world power, said Admiral Sir Alan West in a blistering attack on Labour's defence policy.
Sir Alan West: Government is risking British security
In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, he said the Government was risking the future security of British interests by reshaping the armed forces to wage long-term "anti-terror" campaigns in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sir Alan, 58, said the MoD was behaving "like these tinpot countries" that fail to invest in major equipment programmes, and spend defence budgets on running rather than developing their armed forces. "That way is a recipe for disaster for a defence force that has to do all the things that Britain may have to do in the next 50 years," he said.
In 10 years' time, the threat facing the UK could be something "far more dangerous than terrorism in central Asia". He added: "All we could be left with is an Armed Forces that is effectively a gendarmerie. And I suppose we would retire to our island and hope that no one gets to us."
Sir Alan's comments follow recent criticisms of Government treatment of the Army from General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, the present and former heads of the Army respectively.
advertisement
The latest attack comes amid speculation that the MoD is about to delay or even cancel its "Carrier Strike" programme to build two aircraft carriers by 2015.
Sir Alan, who retired as head of the Royal Navy this year, said he now feared that the £3.5 billion he had ring-fenced for the project was under threat from MoD officials trying to "undermine the programme" so that the money could be used elsewhere in the cash-strapped department.
He said: "The carrier programme is the jewel in the crown of the strategic defence review. Yet there are officials within the MoD who are casting lascivious looks at it. There is no doubt that the rats are out there having a nibble. If Britain wants to remain a world power and to operate with a deal of freedom around the world, these two carriers are vital."
Sir Alan also criticised the Army for not "going through the pain" of addressing its own financial problems in the way the Navy had done over the past few years. He described the Army's attitude towards cost-cutting as "atrocious" and accused senior officers of attempting to "raid" the Forces' overall equipment budget in an effort to solve its own financial problems.
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Great Britain doesn't reorder its priorities from supporting and increasing the welfare state, importing its enemies, and dumbing down the population, and redirect them to recognizing and supporting the ethic that put the Great in Great Britain, you're going to have to do what the Americans, Saudis, Chinese, EU or anyone else tells you to do, and learn to keep your mouth shut.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Drayson would be forcing BAe and VT to form a Joint Venture Company as part of MIS just for the sake of a couple of T45's and the promise of some future surface patrol craft. At City Forum a few days ago he spoke of the CVF as if it was a foregone conlusion but he was not going to be shafted by industry over price etc - after all he has his own reputation as a businessman to protect - he is an on cost and on time merchant.
He's forcing BAe and VT to form a JV on the basis of some fairly questionable assumptions as to what the UK will need in way of a shipbuilding / ship support infrastructure over the next thirty years. The senior civil serpent leading the MIS exercise has already said what he wants to happen and MinDP and his cronies are putting the screws on now. The only outcome from MIS will be initial sounds of satisfaction all round (from BAe and the centre anyway) followed by howls of anguish five years from now when they do the first costings for either FDC or the new surface combatant. If the MoD thinks this is going to work, they really ought to remeber the NAPNOC shenanigans for LPD........
Thread Starter
Some CVF related news here.
Changing the topic for a moment, I have been fortunate to receive as a present the book Wings On My Sleeve by Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown RN (Rtd), the World War Two naval aviator who became an outstanding test pilot, flying more different types of aircraft than anyone else (including P1127 - which later became Harrier), and he would have been the first man to fly supersonic had it not been for budget cuts. He also contributed to the development of post war naval aviation on both sides of the Atlantic.
I first saw this book (the original 1961 edition) at College as a 16 year old, and thought "what an amazing bloke!". This latest edition covers the original topics in greater detail, as the passage of time and the end of the Cold War allow for more information. It also includes details of the last decade of his time in uniform, particularly development work relating to CVA 01.
I have only looked through the book briefly thus far, although I obviously will read it word for word soon. Several aspects of his comments regarding CVA 01 intrigue me. He mentions that CVA 01 was designed to be future proof, and would have been able to deal with aircraft up to 70 000 pounds (a little over 30 tons or 31 tonnes). Would this have mean that in the 80s/90s the Phantom could have been succeeded by the F14 Tomcat, or would a navalised Tornado F3 type bodge have been attempted?
He also says that CVA 01 was to have an almost parallel deck, reducing the angle of the landing area to under three degrees in order to make better use of the deck by not having an area of deck on the port quarter that is cut off during landing operations. Does this sort of approach have any relevance to CVF?
Interestingly, he states that the aircraft capacity was intended to be two thirds in the hangar, and two thirds on deck, in other words it was intended that an extra third could be embarked in an emergency. Was the two thirds in the hangar concept (which implies that a third will be on deck) used during the design of the Invincible Class CVS? Will it be used for CVF?
I am pleased to note that Captain Brown is acting as a consultant for CVF.
I suspect that when I read the book properly I may well have more comments and questions.
Changing the topic for a moment, I have been fortunate to receive as a present the book Wings On My Sleeve by Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown RN (Rtd), the World War Two naval aviator who became an outstanding test pilot, flying more different types of aircraft than anyone else (including P1127 - which later became Harrier), and he would have been the first man to fly supersonic had it not been for budget cuts. He also contributed to the development of post war naval aviation on both sides of the Atlantic.
I first saw this book (the original 1961 edition) at College as a 16 year old, and thought "what an amazing bloke!". This latest edition covers the original topics in greater detail, as the passage of time and the end of the Cold War allow for more information. It also includes details of the last decade of his time in uniform, particularly development work relating to CVA 01.
I have only looked through the book briefly thus far, although I obviously will read it word for word soon. Several aspects of his comments regarding CVA 01 intrigue me. He mentions that CVA 01 was designed to be future proof, and would have been able to deal with aircraft up to 70 000 pounds (a little over 30 tons or 31 tonnes). Would this have mean that in the 80s/90s the Phantom could have been succeeded by the F14 Tomcat, or would a navalised Tornado F3 type bodge have been attempted?
He also says that CVA 01 was to have an almost parallel deck, reducing the angle of the landing area to under three degrees in order to make better use of the deck by not having an area of deck on the port quarter that is cut off during landing operations. Does this sort of approach have any relevance to CVF?
Interestingly, he states that the aircraft capacity was intended to be two thirds in the hangar, and two thirds on deck, in other words it was intended that an extra third could be embarked in an emergency. Was the two thirds in the hangar concept (which implies that a third will be on deck) used during the design of the Invincible Class CVS? Will it be used for CVF?
I am pleased to note that Captain Brown is acting as a consultant for CVF.
I suspect that when I read the book properly I may well have more comments and questions.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carrier
WEBF:
"Surely the politicians realise less ships = less operational capability = less operations."
Actually, as current trends are going, politicans (and Civil Servants) are saying that we are deployed on 2 ongoing operations which dont require aircraft carriers at all. Or many ships for that matter. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable - but that is what is being discussed at very high levels including the people holding the gold.
I suspect this is why Admiral Sir Alan West has decided to have a go in public. I have posted this before and it may be controversial (it may even be wrong) but there is a mode of thought backed by many that aircraft carriers have not had a decisive effect since 1982. Every other operation since could have been launched without carrier launched aircraft. It has also been stated (Hoon?) that the UK will not go to war without the US again so why dont we rely on good ol' Uncle Sam.
Right or wrong, these are thoughts that are being voiced openly by grown-ups.
"Surely the politicians realise less ships = less operational capability = less operations."
Actually, as current trends are going, politicans (and Civil Servants) are saying that we are deployed on 2 ongoing operations which dont require aircraft carriers at all. Or many ships for that matter. Whether they are right or wrong is debatable - but that is what is being discussed at very high levels including the people holding the gold.
I suspect this is why Admiral Sir Alan West has decided to have a go in public. I have posted this before and it may be controversial (it may even be wrong) but there is a mode of thought backed by many that aircraft carriers have not had a decisive effect since 1982. Every other operation since could have been launched without carrier launched aircraft. It has also been stated (Hoon?) that the UK will not go to war without the US again so why dont we rely on good ol' Uncle Sam.
Right or wrong, these are thoughts that are being voiced openly by grown-ups.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Percy,
I know its not you making that argument, but its an argument that can be made for almost every high value equipment program, for example:
I know its not you making that argument, but its an argument that can be made for almost every high value equipment program, for example:
- When was the last time the RAF needed to defend UK airspace?
- When was the last time we deployed an armoured division in defence of UK national interests?
- When was the last time a Vanguard SSBN was used in anger?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have posted this before and it may be controversial (it may even be wrong) but there is a mode of thought backed by many that aircraft carriers have not had a decisive effect since 1982. Every other operation since could have been launched without carrier launched aircraft.
Thread Starter
Sir Percy my comments regarding ship numbers related to the way the RN has been cut since the SDR. with possibly more cuts coming.
As Bismark says, shipborne aviation (rotary wing instead of fixed wing, but so what?) was key to the assault on Al Faw. There was a counter attack by Iraq armour and 3 Commando Brigade, lacking armour, was unable to deal with this and retreat was an option being considered. However, Sea King ASaCs aircraft of 849 NAS were able to detect the Iraqi armour, and guide in TOW armed Lynxes of 847 NAS. A number of tanks and other vehicles were destroyed, and the counter attack was stopped.
Operation El Dorado Canyon, the April 1986 US air strikes against Libya, is an interesting case. Continental air bases could not be used for political reasons, so 18 USAF F111 aircraft flew from bases in the UK. France refused use of their airspace, as did Spain, so about 1300 miles was added to the flight there (and back), with multiple mid air refuelling.
A6, A7 and F/A18 aircraft operated from the carriers America, Sarotoga and Coral Sea which were all in the area. Additionally F14s provided CAP cover (remember the Libyans had fighters), and E2 and EA6B aircraft also took part. Without the carriers there would have been no specialist electronic attack, no fighter cover, and less bomb carrying aircraft.
I think the carriers were also key in the encounters with Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra.
Now, putting that aside for a moment, can anyone who knows about the mechanics of carrier operations comment on Captain Brown's observations regarding CVA 01?
As Bismark says, shipborne aviation (rotary wing instead of fixed wing, but so what?) was key to the assault on Al Faw. There was a counter attack by Iraq armour and 3 Commando Brigade, lacking armour, was unable to deal with this and retreat was an option being considered. However, Sea King ASaCs aircraft of 849 NAS were able to detect the Iraqi armour, and guide in TOW armed Lynxes of 847 NAS. A number of tanks and other vehicles were destroyed, and the counter attack was stopped.
Operation El Dorado Canyon, the April 1986 US air strikes against Libya, is an interesting case. Continental air bases could not be used for political reasons, so 18 USAF F111 aircraft flew from bases in the UK. France refused use of their airspace, as did Spain, so about 1300 miles was added to the flight there (and back), with multiple mid air refuelling.
A6, A7 and F/A18 aircraft operated from the carriers America, Sarotoga and Coral Sea which were all in the area. Additionally F14s provided CAP cover (remember the Libyans had fighters), and E2 and EA6B aircraft also took part. Without the carriers there would have been no specialist electronic attack, no fighter cover, and less bomb carrying aircraft.
I think the carriers were also key in the encounters with Libyan forces in the Gulf of Sidra.
Now, putting that aside for a moment, can anyone who knows about the mechanics of carrier operations comment on Captain Brown's observations regarding CVA 01?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
As for EW assets to support the offensive Malta was only 200 miles distant, Signonella about 350 and Souda Bay not far either.
Given the number of airbases around the Med the value of a carrier might be limited and indeed even a liability.