Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Not too sure but it's damn cold
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh WEBF do please get off your high horse. By all means have strongly held opinions, express them and attempt reasoned argument with those who disagree but please, please try to base them on fact.
Quick hint, try watching the skit, reading the book, watching the documentary, etc before misquoting in attempt to prove yourself witty, erudite and informed.....
Quick hint, try watching the skit, reading the book, watching the documentary, etc before misquoting in attempt to prove yourself witty, erudite and informed.....
"That means the CVF will have a secondary LPH role. Somehow I can't ever see them being used in that way."
Really? Sometimes, believe it or not, the power projection business is just as well done by RW as FW. A CVF sitting 30 miles offshore with large contingent of Bootnecks, CH47s, AH and the CHF is capable of having a large effect on an enemy's planning assumptions - Poise, Fix, Manoeuvre etc. You could always have a flight of Daves to act as escort if deemed necessary.
The RN is at great pains to say that you can Operate 20+ CH47s off the things - they know the way that expeditionary is going and have force structured to suit. We've used the CVS as in-lieu LPHs, CVF will likely be no different. Besides, at the current rate we'll only have RW platforms and crews to embark on them anyway.....
Really? Sometimes, believe it or not, the power projection business is just as well done by RW as FW. A CVF sitting 30 miles offshore with large contingent of Bootnecks, CH47s, AH and the CHF is capable of having a large effect on an enemy's planning assumptions - Poise, Fix, Manoeuvre etc. You could always have a flight of Daves to act as escort if deemed necessary.
The RN is at great pains to say that you can Operate 20+ CH47s off the things - they know the way that expeditionary is going and have force structured to suit. We've used the CVS as in-lieu LPHs, CVF will likely be no different. Besides, at the current rate we'll only have RW platforms and crews to embark on them anyway.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evalu8ter makes a very worthwhile point. LPH role is rather more likely, and rather more useful, than CS. Interesting though how the RN don't seem to be clamouring for the right to badge and operate half of the Chinook fleet or even half of the RAF Merlin fleet. 
Besides, at the current rate we'll only have RW platforms and crews to embark on them anyway.....
Even with Carson blades, that's asking an awful lot of the CHF surely? When is SK4 OSD again?
Interesting though how the RN don't seem to be clamouring for the right to badge and operate half of the Chinook fleet or even half of the RAF Merlin fleet
If you'd done an assessment of just how difficult it is to try and support them (particularly the latter) on a ship for a sustained period, neither would you!
LPH is definitely a good secondary use, but the ship is not set up for it in many of the details that matter (EMF armouries, mags and issue centres, vehicle decks and access to FD, EMF accommodation, assault routes). Those changes would be non-trivial.
Even with Carson blades, that's asking an awful lot of the CHF surely? When is SK4 OSD again?
Interesting though how the RN don't seem to be clamouring for the right to badge and operate half of the Chinook fleet or even half of the RAF Merlin fleet
If you'd done an assessment of just how difficult it is to try and support them (particularly the latter) on a ship for a sustained period, neither would you!
LPH is definitely a good secondary use, but the ship is not set up for it in many of the details that matter (EMF armouries, mags and issue centres, vehicle decks and access to FD, EMF accommodation, assault routes). Those changes would be non-trivial.
Not a Boffin,
CHF will (probably) survive operating Tranche 1 FML, ISD 2015ish, to replace the SK4+ by 2017. So, initially, CVF in LPH role could well have SK4+ as part of a TAG. T1 FML has currently, I believe, got LitM as a KUR for just this reason. All that remains now is to hold an open and fair competition...then award the contract to the merlin anyway........
Agree that the Chinook is a great asset in LitM, but also a great liability for any sustained embarked Ops. The RN tried "seeding" crews into Odi for a possible "Joint Force Chinook" I believe, but the concept was stillborn.
Also agree that CVF is not optimised for the LPH role, but the last Amphib Op we did was actually launched from land...so as long as there is space on the hangar deck for some vehicles, you can transport the rest via RFAs etc. And in terms of deck-cycle, the CVF should be leagues ahead of the current assets.
Now, if we buy a 35-40 000 tonne LPH to replace Ocean.......
CHF will (probably) survive operating Tranche 1 FML, ISD 2015ish, to replace the SK4+ by 2017. So, initially, CVF in LPH role could well have SK4+ as part of a TAG. T1 FML has currently, I believe, got LitM as a KUR for just this reason. All that remains now is to hold an open and fair competition...then award the contract to the merlin anyway........
Agree that the Chinook is a great asset in LitM, but also a great liability for any sustained embarked Ops. The RN tried "seeding" crews into Odi for a possible "Joint Force Chinook" I believe, but the concept was stillborn.
Also agree that CVF is not optimised for the LPH role, but the last Amphib Op we did was actually launched from land...so as long as there is space on the hangar deck for some vehicles, you can transport the rest via RFAs etc. And in terms of deck-cycle, the CVF should be leagues ahead of the current assets.
Now, if we buy a 35-40 000 tonne LPH to replace Ocean.......
Another Name for FASH - who-hoo!
Not heard FML before. Can I assume it's Future Medium Lift and aimed at Puma / SK4?
Merlin 3 is just as difficult to support (if not moreso in a couple of areas) than the Wokka. If Merlin is to be FML LitM, hope we get the Italian Job.....
Merlin 3 is just as difficult to support (if not moreso in a couple of areas) than the Wokka. If Merlin is to be FML LitM, hope we get the Italian Job.....
Not a Boffin,
Aye...SABR, FRC, FASH, now FML...
Spent most of the budget changing the letterheads!
FML=Future Medium Lift. In the Concept phase now I believe, given the "challenging" first deliveries in c2015.........
The Merlin Mk3/3A has a number of well-known issues vis-a-vis LitM, and, yes, at first sight the Italian version would be a better starting point than the current aircraft. However, it would need better engines, transmissions etc to make it fit for purpose. With Merlin looking like a favourite for MASC, and, if Flynx fails, as the SCMR stunt-double, the Logistical attraction of replacing the SK4+ with a Merlin variant is obvious.
Aye...SABR, FRC, FASH, now FML...
Spent most of the budget changing the letterheads!
FML=Future Medium Lift. In the Concept phase now I believe, given the "challenging" first deliveries in c2015.........
The Merlin Mk3/3A has a number of well-known issues vis-a-vis LitM, and, yes, at first sight the Italian version would be a better starting point than the current aircraft. However, it would need better engines, transmissions etc to make it fit for purpose. With Merlin looking like a favourite for MASC, and, if Flynx fails, as the SCMR stunt-double, the Logistical attraction of replacing the SK4+ with a Merlin variant is obvious.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And there isn't much wrong with that. I wonder if everyone who has just had a pop at the Merlin Mk3 has actually been involved with operating them, rather than working from a distance? Yes, it's not perfect, but nothing is. However, it is amazing to me how people still look at it as though nothing has changed in the last 5 years - and as if nothing will. It is NEW - and that means there have been, and in some areas still are, supportability problems and technical issues. have we all forgotten how tortuous and difficult the upgrade to Chinook HC2 standard was? And that was just a rework of an existing major type in international service.
Merlin at least came out of a programme to build a maritime helicopter - and if we bought a 'Mk4' variant then it would most likely have the modifications scoped for CSAR-X (don't know about those? then please don't slag off the design we bought years ago) and would be much closer to the Italian design. If I wanted to develop a LitM ac (SH with a ship clearance?) then I wouldn't waste my time trying to get a Chinook to fold.
Please, people, try to look FORWARD to what Merlin could be if we bought it in this role rather than BACK to what we ordered 20 years ago turned out like 5 years ago.
Merlin at least came out of a programme to build a maritime helicopter - and if we bought a 'Mk4' variant then it would most likely have the modifications scoped for CSAR-X (don't know about those? then please don't slag off the design we bought years ago) and would be much closer to the Italian design. If I wanted to develop a LitM ac (SH with a ship clearance?) then I wouldn't waste my time trying to get a Chinook to fold.
Please, people, try to look FORWARD to what Merlin could be if we bought it in this role rather than BACK to what we ordered 20 years ago turned out like 5 years ago.
Not having a pop at the Mk3 - but it really does need to fold if it's going on a ship - not least the tail from a height pov. Ideally, we'd sort the known gearbox limit, so TL weight growth wouldn't be an issue and crack on with it as FASH, SABR, FRC, FML etc.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gibraltar could be home to new carrier
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Royal Navy continues to study the idea of making Gibraltar the home of one of the new aircraft carriers.
Plans for a carrier base have been in development for several years. The idea would make Gibraltar home to one of Britain’s two new aircraft carriers along with the support fleet that accompanies it. The fleet would serve as a rapid response force.
The tiny island city has become a key area of interest for the Ministry of Defence over the last few years. It already serves as a crucial logistics base for UK forces operating in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The island is also a frequent layover point for Royal Navy ships and has recently become a crucial training ground for naval and air force personnel preparing to deploy to the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation. This makes a scenario where a carrier fleet is permanently stationed in the city more likely. The increased emphasis on law enforcement and anti-smuggling operations have seen more Royal Navy ships using Gibraltar as a base as well.
The MoD sees the building of a permanent aircraft carrier base a way of reducing costs, increasing its presence in the Mediterranean, and allowing for easier deployments throughout the world.
Friday, November 30, 2007
The Royal Navy continues to study the idea of making Gibraltar the home of one of the new aircraft carriers.
Plans for a carrier base have been in development for several years. The idea would make Gibraltar home to one of Britain’s two new aircraft carriers along with the support fleet that accompanies it. The fleet would serve as a rapid response force.
The tiny island city has become a key area of interest for the Ministry of Defence over the last few years. It already serves as a crucial logistics base for UK forces operating in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The island is also a frequent layover point for Royal Navy ships and has recently become a crucial training ground for naval and air force personnel preparing to deploy to the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation. This makes a scenario where a carrier fleet is permanently stationed in the city more likely. The increased emphasis on law enforcement and anti-smuggling operations have seen more Royal Navy ships using Gibraltar as a base as well.
The MoD sees the building of a permanent aircraft carrier base a way of reducing costs, increasing its presence in the Mediterranean, and allowing for easier deployments throughout the world.
Thread Starter
Today is the anniversary of the first landing of a jet aboard a carrier. Lt Cdr (later Capt) Eric Brown landed a Vampire aboard HMS Ocean.
I have recently read his book, Wings On My Sleeve from cover to cover (ok, not the index). In addition to discussing his WWII experiences as a fighter pilot aboard the first escort carrier (for which he got the DSC), deck landing training and service trials work, six years at Farnborough (including a lot of high speed work, early jet flying and investigating captured enemy aircraft), he discusses his post war career including two spells at the MOD. He was involved in the CVA01 design - and this is covered in detail in an appendix.
CVA01 was to have an innovative deck design, with a near parallel landing area with a greatly reduced angle. The island was also to be moved inboard so aircraft could pass on both sides so that landing aircraft could taxi out of the arrestor wires, be refuelled, rearmed, and moved to the catapults. The new design was intended to separate the landing and launching areas completely.
Now look at this article about the American CVN21.
A NASCAR flight deck philosophy. The "island" tower on the flight deck is being redesigned, reduced, and moved. As Rear Adm. Dwyer noted: "The people who actually handle aircraft said, 'The island's in the wrong place. It makes the aircraft all jam up. Why don't you move it?'" So the island has shifted 100 feet aft, and the carrier's elevators, deck et. al. are being shifted to a racetrack-like pattern of operations, complete with "pit stop" parking et. al.
It is this system that accounts for the expected improvements in operational flights per day – a key measure of the carrier's ability to both project power and defend itself.
Sound familliar? They should have listened to Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, Hon FRAeS, RN.
Now could it be said that opting for a STOVL solution partly achieves the same thing, in that with CVF the landing and take off areas will be separated, unlike with the CVS? To my mind a F35B landing on the stern of the CVF will either stay aft of the twin island and be refuelled, rearmed and moved forward to the take off areas (anyone got a picture of the deck?), be parked (possibly aft, possibly forward) or moved onto a lift for a trip to the hangar for serious maintenance etc., and we won't have lots of aircraft moving all over the deck all the time. If we get it right, this will make for a less cluttered deck and a higher sortie rate. Yes?
I bet there are software models out there somewhere.
Some have said flying is a core RAF skill, both here and elsewhere, therefore they can run the carriers. However (and yes I have seen it with my own eyes) operating aircraft from a deck involves not only the aircrew, maintainers and flight deck party, but also the bridge, the operations room team, ME watchkeepers in the SCC, in fact the entire ship is involved. The issue of FOD, for example, effects everyone from the chockheads on the flightdeck to the Buffer's party performing seamanship tasks.
Flying should not viewed in isolation. Getting the ship in the right place at the right time, with the right aircraft positioned correctly, with a suitable amount of wind over the deck, with the necessary radar coverages ..... these are all core naval skills.
I have recently read his book, Wings On My Sleeve from cover to cover (ok, not the index). In addition to discussing his WWII experiences as a fighter pilot aboard the first escort carrier (for which he got the DSC), deck landing training and service trials work, six years at Farnborough (including a lot of high speed work, early jet flying and investigating captured enemy aircraft), he discusses his post war career including two spells at the MOD. He was involved in the CVA01 design - and this is covered in detail in an appendix.
CVA01 was to have an innovative deck design, with a near parallel landing area with a greatly reduced angle. The island was also to be moved inboard so aircraft could pass on both sides so that landing aircraft could taxi out of the arrestor wires, be refuelled, rearmed, and moved to the catapults. The new design was intended to separate the landing and launching areas completely.
Now look at this article about the American CVN21.
A NASCAR flight deck philosophy. The "island" tower on the flight deck is being redesigned, reduced, and moved. As Rear Adm. Dwyer noted: "The people who actually handle aircraft said, 'The island's in the wrong place. It makes the aircraft all jam up. Why don't you move it?'" So the island has shifted 100 feet aft, and the carrier's elevators, deck et. al. are being shifted to a racetrack-like pattern of operations, complete with "pit stop" parking et. al.
It is this system that accounts for the expected improvements in operational flights per day – a key measure of the carrier's ability to both project power and defend itself.
Sound familliar? They should have listened to Captain Eric "Winkle" Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, Hon FRAeS, RN.
Now could it be said that opting for a STOVL solution partly achieves the same thing, in that with CVF the landing and take off areas will be separated, unlike with the CVS? To my mind a F35B landing on the stern of the CVF will either stay aft of the twin island and be refuelled, rearmed and moved forward to the take off areas (anyone got a picture of the deck?), be parked (possibly aft, possibly forward) or moved onto a lift for a trip to the hangar for serious maintenance etc., and we won't have lots of aircraft moving all over the deck all the time. If we get it right, this will make for a less cluttered deck and a higher sortie rate. Yes?
I bet there are software models out there somewhere.
Some have said flying is a core RAF skill, both here and elsewhere, therefore they can run the carriers. However (and yes I have seen it with my own eyes) operating aircraft from a deck involves not only the aircrew, maintainers and flight deck party, but also the bridge, the operations room team, ME watchkeepers in the SCC, in fact the entire ship is involved. The issue of FOD, for example, effects everyone from the chockheads on the flightdeck to the Buffer's party performing seamanship tasks.
Flying should not viewed in isolation. Getting the ship in the right place at the right time, with the right aircraft positioned correctly, with a suitable amount of wind over the deck, with the necessary radar coverages ..... these are all core naval skills.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 6th Dec 2007 at 08:19.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Shefford, Beds, UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly 'postponed'
It seems to be the luck of constituency location that we're going to get the carriers at all:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nforces203.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nforces203.xml
"Funding for the carriers is decimating all other programmes due to the poor defence settlement from the Comprehensive Spending Review."
The pro carrier lobby here should f***ing hang their heads in shame. In an ideal world, where we still spent 7% GDP on defence (as we did before CVA01 was quite rightly torpedoed) no-one would argue against the case for carriers, but with todays realities, we're going to lose far too many useful capabilities to pay for these Admiral's playthings.
The pro carrier lobby here should f***ing hang their heads in shame. In an ideal world, where we still spent 7% GDP on defence (as we did before CVA01 was quite rightly torpedoed) no-one would argue against the case for carriers, but with todays realities, we're going to lose far too many useful capabilities to pay for these Admiral's playthings.
Suspicion breeds confidence
How? very little has actually been spent and the French coughed up for 1/3 of the design costs. Its Typhoon that is the draining the funding.
From the MoD website:
From the MoD website:
“This vessel will be the UK's mobile air-base… Carrier Strike lies at the heart of the UK Armed Forces ability to project offensive air power in support of military operations.”
Last edited by Navaleye; 4th Dec 2007 at 05:39.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""Funding for the carriers is decimating all other programmes due to the poor defence settlement from the Comprehensive Spending Review."
The pro carrier lobby here should f***ing hang their heads in shame."
Incredible sentiment. Surely we should all be pressing for an increase in funding so that other vital programs can also be afforded? As it is Jacko you are playing into the hands of Cnuts like Browne and Brown- letting the forces fight it out amongst themselves while they wash their hands and sit back laughing, whilst throwing £30bn at Northern Rock. Now where did that come from?
The real enemy here is the Govt, not the other services.
The pro carrier lobby here should f***ing hang their heads in shame."
Incredible sentiment. Surely we should all be pressing for an increase in funding so that other vital programs can also be afforded? As it is Jacko you are playing into the hands of Cnuts like Browne and Brown- letting the forces fight it out amongst themselves while they wash their hands and sit back laughing, whilst throwing £30bn at Northern Rock. Now where did that come from?
The real enemy here is the Govt, not the other services.