Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Good enough for Ivan back then, good enough for him in the future.
Strategic Deterrent required to counter real nuclear weapons states.
Sub Strategic (or missile defence/BMD) required to counter the collection of loons most people currently think of as "the threat".
Easiest way to cover both is SSBN plus D5 Trident SLEP with pointy-end variations.
Anybody under the misapprehension that Ivan is going to be our buddy forever more needs to consider what a booming economy (coupled with a proven ability to make dangerous kit) might mean twenty years hence.....
The deterrent is insurance. In this case the difference is that you can't just ring up Zurich or Directline and get covered in a matter of minutes.
WEBF and GBZ are entirely correct, the deterrent is a national not naval issue and should not be a question of either / or CVF.
Strategic Deterrent required to counter real nuclear weapons states.
Sub Strategic (or missile defence/BMD) required to counter the collection of loons most people currently think of as "the threat".
Easiest way to cover both is SSBN plus D5 Trident SLEP with pointy-end variations.
Anybody under the misapprehension that Ivan is going to be our buddy forever more needs to consider what a booming economy (coupled with a proven ability to make dangerous kit) might mean twenty years hence.....
The deterrent is insurance. In this case the difference is that you can't just ring up Zurich or Directline and get covered in a matter of minutes.
WEBF and GBZ are entirely correct, the deterrent is a national not naval issue and should not be a question of either / or CVF.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree the deterrent is a national not a navy issue but given the history of spending by this govt it will become a Navy issue.
No decision on the Carrier programme will be taken until Gordon is in No 10 and the comprehensive spending review is complete.
However will we have the support and escort vessels to ever deploy it?
No decision on the Carrier programme will be taken until Gordon is in No 10 and the comprehensive spending review is complete.
However will we have the support and escort vessels to ever deploy it?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air defence
If CVF / air defence has been an RN priority for the last decade, they've got a bloody funny way of showing it by retiring the SHAR !
In reality, maintenance or even upgrading / making new jets would cost peanuts by military standards -though the fact is internal politics at BAe mean Harrier is a dirty word, it embarrasses the Whippet botherers.
If commonality with the Joint Force Harrier 2 was a big deal, a few Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM ( radar not as good as SHAR, but a bigger engine & other goodies) would have fitted the bill nicely.
In reality, maintenance or even upgrading / making new jets would cost peanuts by military standards -though the fact is internal politics at BAe mean Harrier is a dirty word, it embarrasses the Whippet botherers.
If commonality with the Joint Force Harrier 2 was a big deal, a few Harrier 2+ with AMRAAM ( radar not as good as SHAR, but a bigger engine & other goodies) would have fitted the bill nicely.
Since when did common sense or such considerations come into DPA/DLO funding submissions (or to be fair, treatment of them at the IAB)? You're obviously not aware that the AD gap is currently being covered by the supercalifragilisticallyexpealidocious capable T45 destroyer (which is a triumph of smart procurement btw), the first of which will exter service in 2009...........b*gger.
Another btw is that British Shipbuilders (Warship division) is due to be recreated soon, with an official documentation signing on March 28th.......I wonder if they might get a headline grabbing contract announcement at the same time?
Another btw is that British Shipbuilders (Warship division) is due to be recreated soon, with an official documentation signing on March 28th.......I wonder if they might get a headline grabbing contract announcement at the same time?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2x0,
If you think upgrading or making new jets costs peanuts you need to get your care in the community nurse to take you home. Even trying to get a few extra DAS for the AT fleet, some EW for a BG's Warriors, or embedding JTIDS into a DDGs AAW system is difficult. Yes 'GR9+' with AMRAAM or AV-8B+ would be great. But both options would costs hundreds of millions of GBP which we don't have.
MM
If you think upgrading or making new jets costs peanuts you need to get your care in the community nurse to take you home. Even trying to get a few extra DAS for the AT fleet, some EW for a BG's Warriors, or embedding JTIDS into a DDGs AAW system is difficult. Yes 'GR9+' with AMRAAM or AV-8B+ would be great. But both options would costs hundreds of millions of GBP which we don't have.
MM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Relative peanuts
In a world where oxygen trolleys etc cost amazing amounts, Sea Harriers come out as good value.
So do Harrier 2+'s, compared to a navy sunk by some inconsiderate type not willing to oblige time tables.
If the Type 45 destroyer - all 6 of them - can do 600+ knots with the missile range of a Sea Harrier on CAP, this I have to see.
With the oh so predictable delays for the JSF, a squadron or so of Harrier 2+ ( not GR 9, still a mud mover with very short range missiles & no radar ) would still make sense - and unfortunately avoids the inability of BAe to build Harriers now - though even Warton could probably have managed an FA2 update / refurbish, if internal politics allowed - they managed the Indian upgrade, though the scrimping & robbing parts involved was a little horrifying.
Remind me, how much was the comfy office in Whitehall ?
I'll race you to & in the wheelchairs at the home...
So do Harrier 2+'s, compared to a navy sunk by some inconsiderate type not willing to oblige time tables.
If the Type 45 destroyer - all 6 of them - can do 600+ knots with the missile range of a Sea Harrier on CAP, this I have to see.
With the oh so predictable delays for the JSF, a squadron or so of Harrier 2+ ( not GR 9, still a mud mover with very short range missiles & no radar ) would still make sense - and unfortunately avoids the inability of BAe to build Harriers now - though even Warton could probably have managed an FA2 update / refurbish, if internal politics allowed - they managed the Indian upgrade, though the scrimping & robbing parts involved was a little horrifying.
Remind me, how much was the comfy office in Whitehall ?
I'll race you to & in the wheelchairs at the home...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea Harrier update
BAe Warton ( since the demise of Dunsfold, which was the birthplace & development site of the Harrier ) did the T4i upgrade & supply of ex-RAF aircraft for India - which included robbing Harrier 1's in museums - G-VTOL among others !
It still seems unclear as to whether the Indians will buy redundant FA2's - but if they do they will be without Blue Vixen or anything useful, so used for training airframes only.
The Israeli's have offered to update the weapons fit of the FRS51 - which was already downgraded from FRS1 from the start for NATO reasons.
It still seems unclear as to whether the Indians will buy redundant FA2's - but if they do they will be without Blue Vixen or anything useful, so used for training airframes only.
The Israeli's have offered to update the weapons fit of the FRS51 - which was already downgraded from FRS1 from the start for NATO reasons.
Suspicion breeds confidence
The Israeli upgrade has hit all sorts of problems and no aircraft have yet been converted. The Indians have not taken any FA2s from Shawbury and it is unclear if any upgrades will happen now.
AIUI, the Indians in effect said 'No Blue Vixen? No, thank you' when looking at taking on the SHARs.
Link on Richard Beedall's site. Reference to the SHAR 2s is about four paragraphs below the pic of JSF taking off.
Link on Richard Beedall's site. Reference to the SHAR 2s is about four paragraphs below the pic of JSF taking off.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beedalls editorial makes depressing reading but is factually inaccurate: the most glaring to even the non-informed being that the FA2s are stored at Shawbury and not St Athans. Some of the other stuff is also wrong but this being an open forum and all that...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Update on the French CVF - PA2. Size is now up to 74,000 tons. It doesn't make clear if the UK CVF will be the same size, because the whole thing is increased in size and uses the same common hull sections, or if the PA2 is just stretched and that will just be one of the other differences..
DID: France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
.....The project has been awarded to the "MPOA2" (Maitrise d'Oeuvre Porte Avions No 2) consortium composed of DCN and Thales, and is now proceeding in cooperation with the UK. The design was originally though to be for a ship of about 58,000t, but detailed design work has pushed it up into the 74,000t range, fully 72% larger than the FNS Charles de Gaulle...
In June 2006, PA2 ship design recommendations were made made to the French DGA. They included substantial changes: increasing displacement over the CVF design by 9,000t (to 74,000t), maximum flight deck width by 4 m (to 73 m), and draft by 2 m (to 11.5 m). These increases stem from the need to incorporate American-designed 90 meter C13-2 steam catapults and accompanying boilers that are missing from the British design, internal hangar space changes, a significant increase in carried fuel, and nuclear weapons storage. These changes would also reduce speed from 26.3 knots to about 25-26 knots, a disappointment as the Marine Nationale was hoping for an increase to 29 knots.
Aviation Week reports that the extent of the modifications alarmed the British, to the extent that the joint program was called into question. By Sept. 21, 2006, however, it was accepted that the French PA2 would be only 90% compatible, and that both sides were willing to offer maximum cooperation. Though some features like the engine room and controls will be identical on both classes, the pressing need to cooperate has entailed concessions on both sides, and some key design differences:
*The PA2 must be fitted with steam catapults and arresting gear for the Rafale M fighters, plus the necessary piping, maintenance shafts, and boilers. The French are working to get US export clearance for the C13-2 system. Britain's F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters will use a ramp for take off and can land vertically. The CVF Queen Elizabeth Class will be retrofittable for catapults, but the British prefer to wait for smaller, lighter EMALS electro-magnetic catapults rather than installing all that bulky, heavy, steam machinery.
*PA2's elevators from the aircraft hangar up to the flight deck will be slightly wider to accommodate the Rafale-M's wingspan. There may also be some hangar space changes.
*PA2 will embark 300 more sailors (1,720) than the CVF Queen Elizabeth Class.
*PA2 will have secure storage spaces for nuclear weapons. The Royal Navy delivers nuclear weapons only from its SSBN Vanguard Class Trident missile submarines.
*PA2 will have more space for fuel, because the French navy refuels less often.
*PA2 will use the same French SATRAP list compensation system used on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, which use a combination of fins, rudders, and compensation weights on train tracks. SATRAP can maintain stabilization to within 0.5 degrees of horizontal, allowing aircraft launch and recovery up to Sea State 5/6.
On the other hand, the French also made several design concessions to keep the joint program steming along:
*Accomodations will be by rank (British style, officers in back), not by functions (French style).
*The air wing operations room will also be at the back of the ship, away from carrier operations and the admiral's staff room where the French usually position it......
French PA2 v UK CVF
DID: France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
.....The project has been awarded to the "MPOA2" (Maitrise d'Oeuvre Porte Avions No 2) consortium composed of DCN and Thales, and is now proceeding in cooperation with the UK. The design was originally though to be for a ship of about 58,000t, but detailed design work has pushed it up into the 74,000t range, fully 72% larger than the FNS Charles de Gaulle...
In June 2006, PA2 ship design recommendations were made made to the French DGA. They included substantial changes: increasing displacement over the CVF design by 9,000t (to 74,000t), maximum flight deck width by 4 m (to 73 m), and draft by 2 m (to 11.5 m). These increases stem from the need to incorporate American-designed 90 meter C13-2 steam catapults and accompanying boilers that are missing from the British design, internal hangar space changes, a significant increase in carried fuel, and nuclear weapons storage. These changes would also reduce speed from 26.3 knots to about 25-26 knots, a disappointment as the Marine Nationale was hoping for an increase to 29 knots.
Aviation Week reports that the extent of the modifications alarmed the British, to the extent that the joint program was called into question. By Sept. 21, 2006, however, it was accepted that the French PA2 would be only 90% compatible, and that both sides were willing to offer maximum cooperation. Though some features like the engine room and controls will be identical on both classes, the pressing need to cooperate has entailed concessions on both sides, and some key design differences:
*The PA2 must be fitted with steam catapults and arresting gear for the Rafale M fighters, plus the necessary piping, maintenance shafts, and boilers. The French are working to get US export clearance for the C13-2 system. Britain's F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters will use a ramp for take off and can land vertically. The CVF Queen Elizabeth Class will be retrofittable for catapults, but the British prefer to wait for smaller, lighter EMALS electro-magnetic catapults rather than installing all that bulky, heavy, steam machinery.
*PA2's elevators from the aircraft hangar up to the flight deck will be slightly wider to accommodate the Rafale-M's wingspan. There may also be some hangar space changes.
*PA2 will embark 300 more sailors (1,720) than the CVF Queen Elizabeth Class.
*PA2 will have secure storage spaces for nuclear weapons. The Royal Navy delivers nuclear weapons only from its SSBN Vanguard Class Trident missile submarines.
*PA2 will have more space for fuel, because the French navy refuels less often.
*PA2 will use the same French SATRAP list compensation system used on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, which use a combination of fins, rudders, and compensation weights on train tracks. SATRAP can maintain stabilization to within 0.5 degrees of horizontal, allowing aircraft launch and recovery up to Sea State 5/6.
On the other hand, the French also made several design concessions to keep the joint program steming along:
*Accomodations will be by rank (British style, officers in back), not by functions (French style).
*The air wing operations room will also be at the back of the ship, away from carrier operations and the admiral's staff room where the French usually position it......
French PA2 v UK CVF
PA2 Displacement is not a million miles from the UK figure at end of life WITH cat n'trap. No real surprises there. Suspect they also have a more realistic accommodation and AVCAT provision than ours.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daft question
Can someone in the know give some kind of time-frame on when these beasts are ACTUALLY going to be ordered? As in properly ordered. You know, the kind of ordering where someone goes out and starts chopping up bits of metal and starts to make them look like a carrier. Not the pretend kind of ordering which makes Flag Officers look good.
Apologies for the naivety of my question, but (to quote Papa Lazarou), "this is just becoming a saga now Dave".
I seem to remember the intention to build the CVF was announced in 1997 or thereabouts. I know these things take time, but this is taking the p***.
Apologies for the naivety of my question, but (to quote Papa Lazarou), "this is just becoming a saga now Dave".
I seem to remember the intention to build the CVF was announced in 1997 or thereabouts. I know these things take time, but this is taking the p***.
Last edited by Wannabe1974; 11th Mar 2007 at 12:13.
In a meeting I was at last month, it was stated that both CVF and MARS are effectively in a holding pattern, awaiting "progress" on the reformation of British Shipbuilders (Warship Division) - aka ShipCo. CVF was topping and tailing its submission to the IAB and DMB, prior to submission in anticipation of the production contract. As the rumour mill has an announcememt on the BS(WD) / ShipCo fiasco pencilled in for end March, that should remove the last (government inflicted) obstacle.
The next contract award will be the main production contract. There really isn't anything left to dick about with. It will happen this year or never.
The next contract award will be the main production contract. There really isn't anything left to dick about with. It will happen this year or never.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things are slowly coming together. Drayson will be announcing the formation of ShipCo fairly soon, expect orders for the two carriers to be coincident with this. then theres the CSR- an order for two large shinny grey warships will assuage calls from 1SL for more money, Blair can go having "delivered" and Brown can paint himself as defence friendly. Oh and orders will help Labour in Scotland at the forthcoming elections there.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
looks like the democrats have started playing politics with JSF
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...ne_funding.php
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publ...ne_funding.php
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 80
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse, it looks more like a bean-counter argument. Looks as if the administration hoped to slip in the procurement and funding on the current conflict line entry rather than, presumably more stringent, new acquisition funding rules.
Going for 'new' funding obviously means the procurement would be properly debated.
Going for 'new' funding obviously means the procurement would be properly debated.