Future Carrier (Including Costs)
WEBF,
..... More generally, we'd have to face up to the true geopolitical implications of dependence on resources such as Chinese rare earths. You want capable modern electronics, dear voters of the West? Then either learn to live with China's superpower status and its differing views on the world, or find ingenious (expensive) ways to make electronics with other materials, or be prepared to pay (and fight if necessary) to preserve the status quo. And I can't see the 'woke' modern West running an effective repeat of the colonial era with rare earth metals taking the place of tea, spices, silk and precious stones.
..... More generally, we'd have to face up to the true geopolitical implications of dependence on resources such as Chinese rare earths. You want capable modern electronics, dear voters of the West? Then either learn to live with China's superpower status and its differing views on the world, or find ingenious (expensive) ways to make electronics with other materials, or be prepared to pay (and fight if necessary) to preserve the status quo. And I can't see the 'woke' modern West running an effective repeat of the colonial era with rare earth metals taking the place of tea, spices, silk and precious stones.
China was willing to accept perpetual pollution of many square miles of its territory to achieve 'rare earth' market dominance.
Thus far, no western enterprise has been willing to take on the environmental costs involved, but that could be changed.
Correct - there are loads in places like Chile but people aren't very supportive about trashing the environment to access them.
History shows that any "shortage" of a strategic material is quickly followed by the development & discovery of new resources and the development of alternative technologies (eg using AL rather than Cu)
A classic is the post war uranium "boom" - it was a rare mineral but by the late '50's so much had been found it led to a collapse in the price and closure of lots of mines.
History shows that any "shortage" of a strategic material is quickly followed by the development & discovery of new resources and the development of alternative technologies (eg using AL rather than Cu)
A classic is the post war uranium "boom" - it was a rare mineral but by the late '50's so much had been found it led to a collapse in the price and closure of lots of mines.
Thread Starter
Sorry for taking my time to reply - you know how it is....
andrewn
Like pr00ne says, most of the sections of the carriers were built the carrier were built in non Scottish yards. The components going inside the steel shell came from all over the UK.
The QEC take approximately the same manpower was an Invincible, and needs the same level of escorting and support. Why would they need more? Possibly less, as she can provide more air defence, and I assume will need replenishing less often - more efficient propulsion. Where does this idea come from? By the way, you seem to have forgotten about the squadron of ASW helicopters aboard the old CVS (which was their primary role), and the Harrier GRs...
Asturias56
Why? For the last few years we have been deploying LPH/LPD task groups and contributing frigates and destroyers to American and French carrier groups, so why not deploy our own carrier group? Even outside of NATO, allies may contribute ships. The Netherlands has said it will be part of the QE based task group.
The QEC will be busy - mostly as part of NATO, sometimes outside. Presence is a naval role, and one that helps maintain peace. Will deploying a carrier based task group be more or less demanding for the RN than an amphibious one? I understand that WestLant 19 will ne the RN's major depoyment this year, but that has not stopped Operation Kipion in the Middle East, BALTOPS (with UK LPD, LSD(A), and RFA Argus with 3 x Merlin HC4, and 2 x Wildcat AH1), NATO commitments like standing maritime groups, and national tasking?
Easy Street
Clearly maintaining a CAP is easier with a larger number of aircraft. An experienced RAF AWACS person suggested that this is not the best way of using fighters, if you have AWACS and/or organic AEW. As F-14 is no longer in service, and Sea Harrier/Harrier GR9 are no longer in UK service - a better question is how does the speed of F-35B compare with F/A-18 Super Hornet? You know the Super Hornet took on the Fleet Air Defence role from Tomcat? I am tempted to say a STOVL launch can put more jets in the air in a hurry than hooking them up to the catapult shuttle,raising the JBDs, then shooting it off and starting again?
Does the enemy have bases he can use that out nearer than the local friendly one? A speed/time/distance issue perhaps?
Not sure why you have ignored my point about task group ASW, but never mind
Do you really thinking losing something like an LPD and several hundred Marines will not be a huge strategic shock to the UK/NATO/free World? Really?. By the way, when did we lose an LPD in 1982? RFA Sir Galahad could not be counted as a capital ship, and by that stage of the conflict the landings had taken place, and the war was being won. Fearless and Intrepid were not just full of troops, but also provided the landing craft to get them ashore. Losing the requisitioned QE2 or Canberra.when they were full of troops prior to transferring to the LPDs and ashore would have meant ENDEX.
Militarily, the greatest setback for British forces was losing the SS Atlantic Conveyor. Three Chinooks, six Wessex, and Lynx, about 200 1000lb bombs, and various ammunition stores were lost. If the Chinooks had not been lost, it is unlikely the Welsh Guards would have been sitting aboard a ship in daylight during an air threat warning. The BOI (on the net) for RFA Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam state that the only thing that would have made a definite difference mas more air defence aircraft and being able to use them more effectively.
Likewise, when some of suggested that if a third Sea Wolf armed frigate has been part of the task forces, the answer has been "possibly..but...", however being able to use the Sea Harrier more effectively by having Airborne Early Warning could have countered the Argentine attack, low flying and coming from the North - an unexpected direction that meant the Super Eterndards need to top up with gas from a tanker twice.
It was lack of AEW that caused a new tactic to be devised by Woodward and others. Pairing a Type 42 destroyer with a Type 22 frigate. The T42 had longer range radar, and missiles, and could control Sea Harriers. The Type 22 had Sea Wolf, and had newer radar which suffered less from surface clutter. On 25 May 82 (minutes before Atlantic Conveyor was hit) four Skyhawks were out to sink them - as the Sea Harriers they had been controlling were achieving success. Coventry's radar detected them at long range and directed a pair of Sea Harriers onto them. However, due to concerns about encroaching into her missile engagement zone, the Sea Harriers were called off.
One ship with Sea Dart (medium range SAM) and another with Sea Wolf (short range but effective) against four old Skyhawks? No problem, apart the fact that Coventry's old radar could not get a lock on the targets, Broadsword's computer failed, and Broadsword got him - bombs did not explode. In a couple of minutes, they reset the computer, and are tracking targets. However, communications with Coventry had broken down, and as she was about to engage with Sea Wolf Coventry sloughed into her firing arcs....
Coventry was hit by three bombs, and sank quickly. Calling the Sea Harriers off was a mistake and has been acknowledged as such. Although most modern weapons are fired vertically, eliminating the problem with arcs, power and computer failures still happen. If the Sea Harriers had engaged the Argentine jets the sinking would not have happened. If the task group had had AEW there would have been no need to use the 42/22 combination like that.
In a major war the enemy would seek to destroy our centre of gravity. Are you really suggesting an amphibious task group, a mines counter measures force, or a collection of important vessels full of troops, MBTs, artillery, Typhoon spares, helicopters, field equipment, and so on, would be better off without the protection of organic fighters, the ability to hit enemy ships at range, and the means of 24/7 dipping and long range task group ASW?
In a limited war, or a non war intervention such as the eighties tanker war, an opponent may well still have submarines and jets, possibly with anti ship missiles. The ROE are likely to me more restrictive, and prohibit ships engaging targets at long range, due to the problem with getting a visual ID. Sinking or disabling any sort of Western warship, or auxiliary, is likely to seen as a coup by a third world despot.
andrewn
Like pr00ne says, most of the sections of the carriers were built the carrier were built in non Scottish yards. The components going inside the steel shell came from all over the UK.
The QEC take approximately the same manpower was an Invincible, and needs the same level of escorting and support. Why would they need more? Possibly less, as she can provide more air defence, and I assume will need replenishing less often - more efficient propulsion. Where does this idea come from? By the way, you seem to have forgotten about the squadron of ASW helicopters aboard the old CVS (which was their primary role), and the Harrier GRs...
Asturias56
Why? For the last few years we have been deploying LPH/LPD task groups and contributing frigates and destroyers to American and French carrier groups, so why not deploy our own carrier group? Even outside of NATO, allies may contribute ships. The Netherlands has said it will be part of the QE based task group.
The QEC will be busy - mostly as part of NATO, sometimes outside. Presence is a naval role, and one that helps maintain peace. Will deploying a carrier based task group be more or less demanding for the RN than an amphibious one? I understand that WestLant 19 will ne the RN's major depoyment this year, but that has not stopped Operation Kipion in the Middle East, BALTOPS (with UK LPD, LSD(A), and RFA Argus with 3 x Merlin HC4, and 2 x Wildcat AH1), NATO commitments like standing maritime groups, and national tasking?
Easy Street
Clearly maintaining a CAP is easier with a larger number of aircraft. An experienced RAF AWACS person suggested that this is not the best way of using fighters, if you have AWACS and/or organic AEW. As F-14 is no longer in service, and Sea Harrier/Harrier GR9 are no longer in UK service - a better question is how does the speed of F-35B compare with F/A-18 Super Hornet? You know the Super Hornet took on the Fleet Air Defence role from Tomcat? I am tempted to say a STOVL launch can put more jets in the air in a hurry than hooking them up to the catapult shuttle,raising the JBDs, then shooting it off and starting again?
Does the enemy have bases he can use that out nearer than the local friendly one? A speed/time/distance issue perhaps?
Not sure why you have ignored my point about task group ASW, but never mind
Do you really thinking losing something like an LPD and several hundred Marines will not be a huge strategic shock to the UK/NATO/free World? Really?. By the way, when did we lose an LPD in 1982? RFA Sir Galahad could not be counted as a capital ship, and by that stage of the conflict the landings had taken place, and the war was being won. Fearless and Intrepid were not just full of troops, but also provided the landing craft to get them ashore. Losing the requisitioned QE2 or Canberra.when they were full of troops prior to transferring to the LPDs and ashore would have meant ENDEX.
Militarily, the greatest setback for British forces was losing the SS Atlantic Conveyor. Three Chinooks, six Wessex, and Lynx, about 200 1000lb bombs, and various ammunition stores were lost. If the Chinooks had not been lost, it is unlikely the Welsh Guards would have been sitting aboard a ship in daylight during an air threat warning. The BOI (on the net) for RFA Sir Galahad and Sir Tristam state that the only thing that would have made a definite difference mas more air defence aircraft and being able to use them more effectively.
Likewise, when some of suggested that if a third Sea Wolf armed frigate has been part of the task forces, the answer has been "possibly..but...", however being able to use the Sea Harrier more effectively by having Airborne Early Warning could have countered the Argentine attack, low flying and coming from the North - an unexpected direction that meant the Super Eterndards need to top up with gas from a tanker twice.
It was lack of AEW that caused a new tactic to be devised by Woodward and others. Pairing a Type 42 destroyer with a Type 22 frigate. The T42 had longer range radar, and missiles, and could control Sea Harriers. The Type 22 had Sea Wolf, and had newer radar which suffered less from surface clutter. On 25 May 82 (minutes before Atlantic Conveyor was hit) four Skyhawks were out to sink them - as the Sea Harriers they had been controlling were achieving success. Coventry's radar detected them at long range and directed a pair of Sea Harriers onto them. However, due to concerns about encroaching into her missile engagement zone, the Sea Harriers were called off.
One ship with Sea Dart (medium range SAM) and another with Sea Wolf (short range but effective) against four old Skyhawks? No problem, apart the fact that Coventry's old radar could not get a lock on the targets, Broadsword's computer failed, and Broadsword got him - bombs did not explode. In a couple of minutes, they reset the computer, and are tracking targets. However, communications with Coventry had broken down, and as she was about to engage with Sea Wolf Coventry sloughed into her firing arcs....
Coventry was hit by three bombs, and sank quickly. Calling the Sea Harriers off was a mistake and has been acknowledged as such. Although most modern weapons are fired vertically, eliminating the problem with arcs, power and computer failures still happen. If the Sea Harriers had engaged the Argentine jets the sinking would not have happened. If the task group had had AEW there would have been no need to use the 42/22 combination like that.
In a major war the enemy would seek to destroy our centre of gravity. Are you really suggesting an amphibious task group, a mines counter measures force, or a collection of important vessels full of troops, MBTs, artillery, Typhoon spares, helicopters, field equipment, and so on, would be better off without the protection of organic fighters, the ability to hit enemy ships at range, and the means of 24/7 dipping and long range task group ASW?
In a limited war, or a non war intervention such as the eighties tanker war, an opponent may well still have submarines and jets, possibly with anti ship missiles. The ROE are likely to me more restrictive, and prohibit ships engaging targets at long range, due to the problem with getting a visual ID. Sinking or disabling any sort of Western warship, or auxiliary, is likely to seen as a coup by a third world despot.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks WEBF.
Each of the QECs has the ability to embark upto 50 aircraft and helicopters. We currently have 9 frontline F-35 jets with 617 Sqn, with the plan being for another 17 to arrive by 2023, in order to allow 809 NAS to reform.
Even with this ambitious plan to procure another whole squadron's worth of B's by 2023 it still doesnt allow for anything like enough jets to even fill the deck of a single QEC carrier!
The amount of real estate these carriers give us is completely disproportionate to our ability to fill it. Tell me again very simplistically why we needed two great honking carriers??
Each of the QECs has the ability to embark upto 50 aircraft and helicopters. We currently have 9 frontline F-35 jets with 617 Sqn, with the plan being for another 17 to arrive by 2023, in order to allow 809 NAS to reform.
Even with this ambitious plan to procure another whole squadron's worth of B's by 2023 it still doesnt allow for anything like enough jets to even fill the deck of a single QEC carrier!
The amount of real estate these carriers give us is completely disproportionate to our ability to fill it. Tell me again very simplistically why we needed two great honking carriers??
andrewn,
Now THAT is a post that tells it as it is and I cannot find fault with. Much as I think that the two carriers are a valuable asset, and the Lightning force will be truly stupendous in capability, there is no getting away from the fact that the Lightning build up is incredibly slow, and seeing as it has replaced the Tornado GR4 force as well as providing a carrier capability, we have a HUGE capability/force level gaping window that takes us back to the days of John Nott and his window opening tendencies.
617 with 9 aircraft now, 809NAS forming in FOUR years time, and the next frontline squadron not standing up until the 2030's just seems a ludicrously paced programme that makes a mockery of the carrier capability.
Now THAT is a post that tells it as it is and I cannot find fault with. Much as I think that the two carriers are a valuable asset, and the Lightning force will be truly stupendous in capability, there is no getting away from the fact that the Lightning build up is incredibly slow, and seeing as it has replaced the Tornado GR4 force as well as providing a carrier capability, we have a HUGE capability/force level gaping window that takes us back to the days of John Nott and his window opening tendencies.
617 with 9 aircraft now, 809NAS forming in FOUR years time, and the next frontline squadron not standing up until the 2030's just seems a ludicrously paced programme that makes a mockery of the carrier capability.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
We also have 207 Training Sqn at RAF Marham now; that could embark if necessary!
However, I do agree the proposed build-up is too slow.
However, I do agree the proposed build-up is too slow.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
I agree that the build up of the RN/RAF F-35B force is painfully slow! However, some of the most important carrier roles do not involve large numbers of jets, but are helicopter centric like Anti Submarine Warfare or Littoral Maneuvere. It would appear the UK has committed ASW capabilities to NATO, and we did provide the flagship for Exercise Deep Blue in 2014, and Deep Blue II in 2016.
On the other side of the World, ASW has been identified as a likely mission for JMSDF 'helicopter destroyers' - JMSDF 'carrier' to escort US supply ship.
This is where the Izumo can be useful. The carrier is especially adept at working as a anti-submarine warfare platform, with the ability to create a large screen around the ships it protects via its embarked sub-hunting helicopters. It can also provide mine sweeping, surveillance, command and control and other capabilities in addition to additional fuel carriage—especially aviation fuels—which can be pushed to other assets like guided missile destroyers.
In future Japan will most likely have F-35B launching of their decks as well. Logistics are universal. Equally, they are universally at risk. Submarines and Air to Surface Missile armed aircraft are in the hands of many aggressors.
Land based forces, including aircraft operating from land bases, still depend on seaborne logistics. See: The RAF sets sail for Estonia
Can you imagine this type of conversation:
You just need a ship with lots of deck space and a squadron of helicopters....
Do you think that ship is going to be a bit like a carrier?
Well..... so what?
The enemy will see her as a priority target for air attack!
Give her an escort then.....
She could carry fixed wing aircraft, and stop the bandits long before any ship can! Which would have been a better plan anyway - archers not arrows.
But we do not need carriers - no use ever..
What about protecting ships full of spares or support equipment, or an LPD?
They are expendable, and cheaper to replace than jets...
God willing, we will not face a cataclysmic conflict with Russia or China, but the Geopolitical posturing and deterrence we saw in the violet peace of the Cold War, limited war such as the Falklands or Gulf, or actions to try to cool a conflict in the developing world that involves third parties (eg the eighties tanker war), or interventions on humanitarian grounds (Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone) or on behalf on UN resolutions (eg Iraqi no fly zones, Afghanistan post 9/11, or Libya).
Unsurprisingly, NATO has carrier related initiatives: Affirming and Preserving NATO Air Power from the Sea
On the other side of the World, ASW has been identified as a likely mission for JMSDF 'helicopter destroyers' - JMSDF 'carrier' to escort US supply ship.
This is where the Izumo can be useful. The carrier is especially adept at working as a anti-submarine warfare platform, with the ability to create a large screen around the ships it protects via its embarked sub-hunting helicopters. It can also provide mine sweeping, surveillance, command and control and other capabilities in addition to additional fuel carriage—especially aviation fuels—which can be pushed to other assets like guided missile destroyers.
In future Japan will most likely have F-35B launching of their decks as well. Logistics are universal. Equally, they are universally at risk. Submarines and Air to Surface Missile armed aircraft are in the hands of many aggressors.
Land based forces, including aircraft operating from land bases, still depend on seaborne logistics. See: The RAF sets sail for Estonia
Can you imagine this type of conversation:
You just need a ship with lots of deck space and a squadron of helicopters....
Do you think that ship is going to be a bit like a carrier?
Well..... so what?
The enemy will see her as a priority target for air attack!
Give her an escort then.....
She could carry fixed wing aircraft, and stop the bandits long before any ship can! Which would have been a better plan anyway - archers not arrows.
But we do not need carriers - no use ever..
What about protecting ships full of spares or support equipment, or an LPD?
They are expendable, and cheaper to replace than jets...
God willing, we will not face a cataclysmic conflict with Russia or China, but the Geopolitical posturing and deterrence we saw in the violet peace of the Cold War, limited war such as the Falklands or Gulf, or actions to try to cool a conflict in the developing world that involves third parties (eg the eighties tanker war), or interventions on humanitarian grounds (Bosnia/Kosovo/Sierra Leone) or on behalf on UN resolutions (eg Iraqi no fly zones, Afghanistan post 9/11, or Libya).
Unsurprisingly, NATO has carrier related initiatives: Affirming and Preserving NATO Air Power from the Sea
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 28th Aug 2020 at 14:23. Reason: Typo
According to the Public Perception thread Boris & friends are planning "cuts in out of control MoD programmes.."
His mad mate Cummings is not a carrier fan apparently.....................
His mad mate Cummings is not a carrier fan apparently.....................
There's a problem with searching through politicians backgrounds t see if they favour "brown" "blue" or light blue" as the only safe answer becomes to appoint someone who has absolutely no background, knowledge or interest in the armed forces- Mr Corbyn, Ms Abbott or Mr Gove say................ 
There's a problem with searching through politicians backgrounds t see if they favour "brown" "blue" or light blue" as the only safe answer becomes to appoint someone who has absolutely no background, knowledge or interest in the armed forces- Mr Corbyn, Ms Abbott or Mr Gove say................
WEBF,
You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.
Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.
With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.
When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?
And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.
Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.
When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.
You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.
Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.
With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.
When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?
And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.
Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.
When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.
Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.
With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.
When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?
And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.
Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.
When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.
You say that a large element of aircraft carrier operations don’t involve fast jets.
Where on earth are these alternative aircraft to come from?
The RN has 30 Merlin HMA2’s, 25 Merlin HC4’s and 28 Wildcats.
Put all those on 1 RN carrier and the Navy has no more aircraft for any of it’s other ships. And another empty carrier.
Carriers of this size only make sense if you can embark aircraft in quantity.
With only 9 deployable Lightning’s they are a total waste of money.
When is the 3rd operational Lightning squadron to form, 2033?
And the Lighting’s aren’t just a SHAR replacement, they also replaced the 7 squadron Tornado GR4 force and the Harriers.
Cummings and co have a point about wasteful defence projects.
When they realise the facts re the deployable capability of the 2 carriers they must be first in the queue to be axed.
The only thing that could save one of them is some US/UK joint basing tie up, but assuming the US dont actually fund the upkeep of the carriers then they can bitch and whinge, but ultimately any decision to scrap them remains ours. And if we say we'll buy a load more 'A's I doubt they'll care that much anyway.
Much like HS2, we'll start to see the writing on the wall once the bad news leaks and corridor briefings start up....
Perhaps the Germans will buy them....... 
"Much like HS2, we'll start to see the writing on the wall once the bad news leaks and corridor briefings start up...."
after the Tory Party Conference end September - tho'll they'll probably kick it down the road until November so they can blame the EU.....................
after the Tory Party Conference end September - tho'll they'll probably kick it down the road until November so they can blame the EU.....................
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
She is not yet operational! How long do you think it takes to dismantle a few tents? She sails in the next 2 weeks, with some UK F35s embarked.
Last edited by PeterGee; 21st Aug 2019 at 07:35.