Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Tman,
I think I will get another cuppa and try to read that post a second time in the vain hope I shall begin to understand what it was you said.
I think the short version is this is yet another demonstration of the sheer genius of some that was good.....and for some who could complicate a Piss Up in a Brewery!
I think I will get another cuppa and try to read that post a second time in the vain hope I shall begin to understand what it was you said.
I think the short version is this is yet another demonstration of the sheer genius of some that was good.....and for some who could complicate a Piss Up in a Brewery!
SASless
Since I posted that reply, I've been shown the Crowsnest timescales, as of March 2019. I'd say they were only attainable if, in March 2019, they were already 90% of the way through trials, and everything was going really well. Given the reported problems, that is unlikely, so there would seem to have been a degree of optimism.
The main technical issue mentioned, which MAY be some sort of receiver sensitivity mismatch, is a well-known gotcha, and was both predicted and occurred on Sea King ASaC Mk7. (But not by the prime contractor, which is what caused difficulty). That being so, and assuming Crowsnest is meant to upgrade aspects of the Mk7 system, then that would (or should) be one of the top technical risks, as it was on Mk7.
That doesn't mean it could have been fully mitigated, because quite often 'requirements' handed to procurers defy the laws of physics. Any solution would require extensive trialling, as (and I stand to be corrected on these matters) the resultant installed performance in turn dictates tactics and training - the latter is mentioned in the linked article - and not just of this aircraft.
It makes me wonder if Crowsnest read the Post Project Evaluations from ASaC Mk7 - which set all this out in great detail as it was known FOAEW/MASC was coming along. It is well known FOAEW and then MASC didn't, as their cunning plan was to lift the mission system out of ASaC and simply drop it in a Merlin. For a start, the consoles were part of the aircraft structure, which automatically makes the airframe part of the programme very significant.
All a long time ago I'm afraid, and MoD is unlikely to have anyone left who remembers this. Certainly none of the ASaC team is left. Wheels get reinvented, and turn out square.
Since I posted that reply, I've been shown the Crowsnest timescales, as of March 2019. I'd say they were only attainable if, in March 2019, they were already 90% of the way through trials, and everything was going really well. Given the reported problems, that is unlikely, so there would seem to have been a degree of optimism.
The main technical issue mentioned, which MAY be some sort of receiver sensitivity mismatch, is a well-known gotcha, and was both predicted and occurred on Sea King ASaC Mk7. (But not by the prime contractor, which is what caused difficulty). That being so, and assuming Crowsnest is meant to upgrade aspects of the Mk7 system, then that would (or should) be one of the top technical risks, as it was on Mk7.
That doesn't mean it could have been fully mitigated, because quite often 'requirements' handed to procurers defy the laws of physics. Any solution would require extensive trialling, as (and I stand to be corrected on these matters) the resultant installed performance in turn dictates tactics and training - the latter is mentioned in the linked article - and not just of this aircraft.
It makes me wonder if Crowsnest read the Post Project Evaluations from ASaC Mk7 - which set all this out in great detail as it was known FOAEW/MASC was coming along. It is well known FOAEW and then MASC didn't, as their cunning plan was to lift the mission system out of ASaC and simply drop it in a Merlin. For a start, the consoles were part of the aircraft structure, which automatically makes the airframe part of the programme very significant.
All a long time ago I'm afraid, and MoD is unlikely to have anyone left who remembers this. Certainly none of the ASaC team is left. Wheels get reinvented, and turn out square.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This mornings Daily ExpressHow US could use UK ships to bolster its fleet as defence concerns grow
THE ROYAL NAVY boasts some of the most advanced ships and destroyers in the world. But with recent cuts to military budgets coinciding with the US' huge naval standoff in regions such as the South China Sea, Britain's forces are reportedly planning to lease an aircraft carrier to Washington.
By CHARLIE BRADLEY PUBLISHED: 00:01, Tue, Feb 4, 2020 | UPDATED: 00:10, Tue, Feb 4, 2020 OSE
According to reports in recent months, the British Army is said to be pushing for one of the Royal Navy’s brand new super carriers to be leased out to the US in a bid to garner extra cash for military funding. A Sunday Times’ report revealed that decision makers in the UK’s military brass could flog either HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Queen Elizabeth. The US, which is currently embroiled in a huge naval standoff in the South China Sea, could take on one of the ships in yet another expansion of its fleet.
This comes despite the Government’s promises to maintain the size of the armed forces.
An unnamed source told the Sunday Times in November: “The army hates aircraft carriers, which they have always seen as a white elephant, but the Americans love them. They are cutting edge because they can operate with far fewer crew than US carriers.”
The reports have been denied by the UK’s Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace MP, who said: “This is total rubbish. There are no plans to shrink the armed forces. “There are however plans to increase army recruiting levels.”
HMS Queen Elizabeth visited the US last year, with Tony Radakin, the First Sea Lord and UK Chief of Naval Staff, claiming that the two allies’ naval forces could be closely integrated. He said: “As she has demonstrated already, we can successfully field a combined US, UK carrier strike group. I look forward to this developing further.”
Cuts to the Defence budget in recent years have heaped more pressure on British forces, with many expressing a dire need for increased spending to avoid security deficiencies. In 2018 there was a Ł20billion shortfall in the UK’s Ł179billion equipment budget, and figures last August showed that the British forces were 7,000 soldiers short of its 82,000 target. In November, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to deny claims that the British forces would cut its personnel to between 60,000-65,000, the smallest number for centuries.
Mr Johnson said while launching his 2019 manifesto: “We will not be cutting our armed forces in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed services.” For the last nine years, the British military has decreased in size with personnel decreasing in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force (RAF).
THE ROYAL NAVY boasts some of the most advanced ships and destroyers in the world. But with recent cuts to military budgets coinciding with the US' huge naval standoff in regions such as the South China Sea, Britain's forces are reportedly planning to lease an aircraft carrier to Washington.
By CHARLIE BRADLEY PUBLISHED: 00:01, Tue, Feb 4, 2020 | UPDATED: 00:10, Tue, Feb 4, 2020 OSE
According to reports in recent months, the British Army is said to be pushing for one of the Royal Navy’s brand new super carriers to be leased out to the US in a bid to garner extra cash for military funding. A Sunday Times’ report revealed that decision makers in the UK’s military brass could flog either HMS Prince of Wales or HMS Queen Elizabeth. The US, which is currently embroiled in a huge naval standoff in the South China Sea, could take on one of the ships in yet another expansion of its fleet.
This comes despite the Government’s promises to maintain the size of the armed forces.
An unnamed source told the Sunday Times in November: “The army hates aircraft carriers, which they have always seen as a white elephant, but the Americans love them. They are cutting edge because they can operate with far fewer crew than US carriers.”
The reports have been denied by the UK’s Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace MP, who said: “This is total rubbish. There are no plans to shrink the armed forces. “There are however plans to increase army recruiting levels.”
HMS Queen Elizabeth visited the US last year, with Tony Radakin, the First Sea Lord and UK Chief of Naval Staff, claiming that the two allies’ naval forces could be closely integrated. He said: “As she has demonstrated already, we can successfully field a combined US, UK carrier strike group. I look forward to this developing further.”
Cuts to the Defence budget in recent years have heaped more pressure on British forces, with many expressing a dire need for increased spending to avoid security deficiencies. In 2018 there was a Ł20billion shortfall in the UK’s Ł179billion equipment budget, and figures last August showed that the British forces were 7,000 soldiers short of its 82,000 target. In November, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was forced to deny claims that the British forces would cut its personnel to between 60,000-65,000, the smallest number for centuries.
Mr Johnson said while launching his 2019 manifesto: “We will not be cutting our armed forces in any form. We will be maintaining the size of our armed services.” For the last nine years, the British military has decreased in size with personnel decreasing in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force (RAF).
Exactly why would we need a UK designed, built, and crewed Ship?
Who would maintain, service, and repair the ship?
Why would the RN accept being seconded to the US Navy?
I know the President is keen on good bargains in his business dealings.....but I think he will see this scheme to be just plain cockeyed crazy!
If he were to negotiate such a deal...you lot are going to hate the terms and conditions along with the compensation.....as he knows how badly you need the dosh.
One should always negotiate from a position of strength....and that would be your undoing.
Who would maintain, service, and repair the ship?
Why would the RN accept being seconded to the US Navy?
I know the President is keen on good bargains in his business dealings.....but I think he will see this scheme to be just plain cockeyed crazy!
If he were to negotiate such a deal...you lot are going to hate the terms and conditions along with the compensation.....as he knows how badly you need the dosh.
One should always negotiate from a position of strength....and that would be your undoing.
Exactly SASless, this is a load of tripe spouted by a rag with a rapidly declining reputation for getting anything in defence right.
But....but.....but American Aircraft you have to admit!
SASless,
They are a bit British too...
They are a bit British too...
Exactly why would we need a UK designed, built, and crewed Ship? - it would be very very cheap to acquire
Who would maintain, service, and repair the ship? - an excellent point - neither country has any spare capacity TBH and the constructors probably binned the blueprints (or sold them to the Chinese) already
Why would the RN accept being seconded to the US Navy? -a) because the Govt tell them to b) its the only way they'll get any experience as the cash has run out in Whitehall
Who would maintain, service, and repair the ship? - an excellent point - neither country has any spare capacity TBH and the constructors probably binned the blueprints (or sold them to the Chinese) already
Why would the RN accept being seconded to the US Navy? -a) because the Govt tell them to b) its the only way they'll get any experience as the cash has run out in Whitehall
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
QE will be touring the world with a USMC F-35B wing for her first tour anyway - and if it works for 1-2 years, o reason the same arrangement can’t be stretched out a few years at a time on a lease arrangement.
ORAC,
Hardly a USMC Wing, it will be carrying one UK squadron and one USMC squadron, at times...
Hardly a USMC Wing, it will be carrying one UK squadron and one USMC squadron, at times...
So....when this miracle of jointness goes to sea....and we have to stock a completely unique set of spares for it....thus taking up storage capacity we need for our own needs (based upon common kit in our ships)....that would input a burden on us rather than a benefit.
I would love to see either or both of these RN Aircraft Carriers do a long at Sea deployment as some of our Carriers have done.
The Nimitz did a 270 day deployment with 144 continuous days at sea during one stretch of operations.
Are you guys ready for that contingency?
http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn68history.htm
I would love to see either or both of these RN Aircraft Carriers do a long at Sea deployment as some of our Carriers have done.
The Nimitz did a 270 day deployment with 144 continuous days at sea during one stretch of operations.
Are you guys ready for that contingency?
http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn68history.htm
...I would love to see either or both of these RN Aircraft Carriers do a long at Sea deployment as some of our Carriers have done.
The Nimitz did a 270 day deployment with 144 continuous days at sea during one stretch of operations.
Are you guys ready for that contingency?
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) history
The Nimitz did a 270 day deployment with 144 continuous days at sea during one stretch of operations.
Are you guys ready for that contingency?
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) history
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ob...-a6779361.html
Thanks to their Integrated Electric Propulsion and advanced automation, they only require 23% of the ship's company, too (800 vs 3,500).
Does this sound about right?
Bunks for 1600....in 423 cabins, galley able to produce 963 meals in an hour. Room for a total of 70 aircraft but with only six deck spots, no cat and no arresting gear.
If you have a crew of 800 why all the spare bunks?
Watch Bills must get interesting at Sea....with only 800 crew.....and still afford time off to rest, eat, sleep and watch movies in the onboard Cinema.
Bunks for 1600....in 423 cabins, galley able to produce 963 meals in an hour. Room for a total of 70 aircraft but with only six deck spots, no cat and no arresting gear.
If you have a crew of 800 why all the spare bunks?
Watch Bills must get interesting at Sea....with only 800 crew.....and still afford time off to rest, eat, sleep and watch movies in the onboard Cinema.
yep according to the RN own site
The ship will have a crew of around 700, increasing to 1,600 when a full complement of F-35B jets and Crowsnest helicopters are embarked.
Last edited by rattman; 6th Feb 2020 at 09:10.
"If you have a crew of 800 why all the spare bunks?"
They will double up (allegedly) as LHA's...............
They will double up (allegedly) as LHA's...............