Future Carrier (Including Costs)
PPRuNe does not like b-l-o-g-s-p-o-t. Software quirk I believe.
On topic - HMS Queen Elizabeth is now contributing to British and NATO capabilities, deterring and reassuring. She is leading a NATO task group for Joint Warrior. It will be interesting to know the exercise scenario. Whilst hitting targets ashore may be part of it, the RN/RAF (617 Sqn is jointly manned, as 809 NAS will be when it comes along) and USMC F-35Bs will do be doing air defence (in fact they probably already have been during recent days in the North Sea). This will be in conjunction with the destroyers and their fighter controllers. The ASW Merlins will perform ASW in conjunction with the frigates (and their helicopters), the SSN that is part of the group, and MPA.
The line between exercise and operation is blurred due to the deterrent effect of exercises. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. Demonstrating the ability to achieve maritime and air superiority helps promote international stability.
On topic - HMS Queen Elizabeth is now contributing to British and NATO capabilities, deterring and reassuring. She is leading a NATO task group for Joint Warrior. It will be interesting to know the exercise scenario. Whilst hitting targets ashore may be part of it, the RN/RAF (617 Sqn is jointly manned, as 809 NAS will be when it comes along) and USMC F-35Bs will do be doing air defence (in fact they probably already have been during recent days in the North Sea). This will be in conjunction with the destroyers and their fighter controllers. The ASW Merlins will perform ASW in conjunction with the frigates (and their helicopters), the SSN that is part of the group, and MPA.
The line between exercise and operation is blurred due to the deterrent effect of exercises. The price of peace is eternal vigilance. Demonstrating the ability to achieve maritime and air superiority helps promote international stability.
Thread Starter
I do wonder what all you critics will say when HMS Queen Elizabeth takes part in a NATO exercise like Deep Blue - which must be overdue since we have not done one since 2016? Showing that we can protect crisis response shipping from submarine and air threats - and enhancing stability in the North Atlantic and European region?
Personally I dislike pictures of task groups in tight formations as it paints a thousand wrong words. The whole point of a task group is that it spreads out over a considerable area. As I and others have tried to say, the carrier's aircraft work with frigates and destroyers to provide capabilities. In some ways it would be more accurate to describe surface warships in a carrier group as consorts rather than simply escorts.
Personally I dislike pictures of task groups in tight formations as it paints a thousand wrong words. The whole point of a task group is that it spreads out over a considerable area. As I and others have tried to say, the carrier's aircraft work with frigates and destroyers to provide capabilities. In some ways it would be more accurate to describe surface warships in a carrier group as consorts rather than simply escorts.
But as I'm sure you're well aware it's rather difficult, if not impossible, to take a picture of such a formation.
Thread Starter
Her first NATO (and national) mission - one of many. Peace through strength.
The value of a larger ship and a larger deck is obvious from this picture.
Look at the way it lands so smoothly compared with Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7/9. In Sea Harrier Over The Falklands, Sharkey Ward said he hoped that the successor to the Sea Harrier would be easier to land. Well - here it is, with fifth generation avionics and LO. Both air defence (controlled by a shipborne Freddy) and attack have been part of this exercise.
In future the number of F-35B (are we officially calling it the Lightning?) will increase, operated by the joint RN/RAF force (recent window licking over this has been seen - from Peter 'Ignore The Science' Hitchens, and with be supported by Crowsnest. The air to air capability will hopefully be enhanced by Meteor. With The US looking to build light fleet carriers based on the America class LHD, so maybe it will be getting some sort of anti ship weapon integrated?
However, it is not all about the jets.
The Pingers contribute to task group ASW capabilities and work with the frigates and their helicopters, and the Junglies do their stuff. The Junglies can relieve the Pingers of much SAR/VERTREP/HDS tasking. Co-ordinated ASW was part of this exercise.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 16th Oct 2020 at 11:34.
Thread Starter
Are you talking about the use of Twitter? Yes I have my doubts too, but remember it does reach people, and the average person has a shorter attention span that the average Goldfish. A fuller explanation would be that the intercept was controlled by HMS Defender - in other words the destroyer is actively involved in carrier based air defence. Likewise HMS Kent could track a submarine but to localise and prosecute you need helicopters with dipping sonar.
As for 'silent service' - well that worked well in the past....... Apart from making the RN more vulnerable to cuts and political interference, that is. A poorly articulated case for new carriers in the sixties, based on an out of area role instead of NATO (it was the need for ASW and supporting air defence in the Atlantic that led to the Invincible class/Sea Harrier/ASW and AEW Sea Kings), then not being willing to flag up the role of the Sea Harrier throughout the nineties and beyond, and then being at risk of deeper cuts and suffering political interference due to the reasons for a number of things being the way they were not being adequately articulated, that is.
As for 'silent service' - well that worked well in the past....... Apart from making the RN more vulnerable to cuts and political interference, that is. A poorly articulated case for new carriers in the sixties, based on an out of area role instead of NATO (it was the need for ASW and supporting air defence in the Atlantic that led to the Invincible class/Sea Harrier/ASW and AEW Sea Kings), then not being willing to flag up the role of the Sea Harrier throughout the nineties and beyond, and then being at risk of deeper cuts and suffering political interference due to the reasons for a number of things being the way they were not being adequately articulated, that is.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
POLITICO: CARRIERS SHOT DOWN
Big questions remain about the capabilities of two new aircraft carriers — despite concerns being raised two years ago, the public accounts committee reports this morning.
The PAC said there had been “little discernible progress” on issues it raised in 2018.
Big questions remain about the capabilities of two new aircraft carriers — despite concerns being raised two years ago, the public accounts committee reports this morning.
The PAC said there had been “little discernible progress” on issues it raised in 2018.
The Royal Navy’s £6.4 billion aircraft carriers face only being able to operate in a limited way due to Government indecision, penny pinching and a lack of support vessels, MPs have warned. The Commons public spending watchdog accused ministers of a “debilitating lack of clarity” about what they want the carriers – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – to achieve. Problems with the ships’ Crowsnest radar system will leave them with “less protection than planned”, there is a lack of support vessels to supply the carriers, and uncertainty on how many Lightning II jets will now be needed.
The Public Accounts Committee warned that the Ministry of Defence’s “failure to fund several key supporting capabilities will restrict how it can use the carriers for many years”. The MoD said getting the carrier strike group ready was a “complex challenge” but “we remain committed to investing in this capability”.
Highlighting problems with the carrier strike programme, the cross-party committee said: “The new Crowsnest radar system has been delayed by 18 months because of poor contractor performance and inadequate departmental oversight. “The department also lacks the support ships it needs to supply the carriers and has not yet developed a long-term solution to move people and goods to and from a carrier group.” The MPs said: “There remains a disturbing lack of clarity about the costs associated with purchasing and supporting the Lightning II jets, as well as about how many more the department will need or can afford in the future.”
Further problems could be caused by the integrated review of defence and foreign policy now coming ahead of the delayed multi-year Whitehall spending settlement.
Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said: “As things stand the UK has two world-class aircraft carriers with limited capability because the wider debate about the UK’s strategic defence capability – and funding – has been repeatedly delayed. This debilitating lack of clarity threatens our national defences yet it’s not likely to be resolved when the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review look likely to be out of step with each other once again. The MoD and the nation it’s responsible for defending cannot afford for this rare beacon of success, in delivering the two carriers, to descend into yet another failure to deliver defence capability. The MoD must recognise that is a real risk, a real risk to a vital part of our national defences, and it must demonstrate now a clear plan to capitalise on the massive investment the UK has already made – and deliver Carrier Strike.”
Tn MoD spokesman said the committee and the National Audit Office had recognised that “considerable progress” had been made since their last reports in 2017. “Carrier strike is a complex challenge which relies on a mix of capabilities and platforms. We remain committed to investing in this capability,” the spokesman said. “Despite the disruptions of Covid-19, the carrier strike group is on track for its first operational deployment in 2021.”
The Public Accounts Committee warned that the Ministry of Defence’s “failure to fund several key supporting capabilities will restrict how it can use the carriers for many years”. The MoD said getting the carrier strike group ready was a “complex challenge” but “we remain committed to investing in this capability”.
Highlighting problems with the carrier strike programme, the cross-party committee said: “The new Crowsnest radar system has been delayed by 18 months because of poor contractor performance and inadequate departmental oversight. “The department also lacks the support ships it needs to supply the carriers and has not yet developed a long-term solution to move people and goods to and from a carrier group.” The MPs said: “There remains a disturbing lack of clarity about the costs associated with purchasing and supporting the Lightning II jets, as well as about how many more the department will need or can afford in the future.”
Further problems could be caused by the integrated review of defence and foreign policy now coming ahead of the delayed multi-year Whitehall spending settlement.
Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said: “As things stand the UK has two world-class aircraft carriers with limited capability because the wider debate about the UK’s strategic defence capability – and funding – has been repeatedly delayed. This debilitating lack of clarity threatens our national defences yet it’s not likely to be resolved when the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review look likely to be out of step with each other once again. The MoD and the nation it’s responsible for defending cannot afford for this rare beacon of success, in delivering the two carriers, to descend into yet another failure to deliver defence capability. The MoD must recognise that is a real risk, a real risk to a vital part of our national defences, and it must demonstrate now a clear plan to capitalise on the massive investment the UK has already made – and deliver Carrier Strike.”
Tn MoD spokesman said the committee and the National Audit Office had recognised that “considerable progress” had been made since their last reports in 2017. “Carrier strike is a complex challenge which relies on a mix of capabilities and platforms. We remain committed to investing in this capability,” the spokesman said. “Despite the disruptions of Covid-19, the carrier strike group is on track for its first operational deployment in 2021.”
POLITICO: CARRIERS SHOT DOWN
Big questions remain about the capabilities of two new aircraft carriers — despite concerns being raised two years ago, the public accounts committee reports this morning.
The PAC said there had been “little discernible progress” on issues it raised in 2018.
Big questions remain about the capabilities of two new aircraft carriers — despite concerns being raised two years ago, the public accounts committee reports this morning.
The PAC said there had been “little discernible progress” on issues it raised in 2018.
The mismatch between the MOD’s budget and its desired outputs is the unavoidable issue behind this and most of the other procurement issues, and no amount of carrier expertise is going to fix that.
The problem is also one flagged many times on here - lack of enough support vessels to cover the Carriers AND the work they currently do
Quite how they haven't fixed "moving goods on and off the carriers" is one to marvel although - I'd assumed they'd buy a few Osprey's...............
Quite how they haven't fixed "moving goods on and off the carriers" is one to marvel although - I'd assumed they'd buy a few Osprey's...............
The problem is also one flagged many times on here - lack of enough support vessels to cover the Carriers AND the work they currently do
Quite how they haven't fixed "moving goods on and off the carriers" is one to marvel although - I'd assumed they'd buy a few Osprey's...............
Quite how they haven't fixed "moving goods on and off the carriers" is one to marvel although - I'd assumed they'd buy a few Osprey's...............
As for moving goods on and off the carriers - that's a bit of a red herring. There is an existing interim solution which has been perfectly adequate and could be augmented with a couple of Chinooks if required. However, people are conflating this (properly called Maritime Intra Theatre Lift - MITL - a programme that has been in concept phase since the late noughties) with Carrier On-Board Delivery (something we've not had since the demise of the Gannet COD birds in the late 70s) and getting over-excited about it.
Crowsnest is now deep in its testing phase and should deliver, albeit late. The Fleet Solid Support ship competition looks like it'll restart in the new year and should deliver towards the end of the decade (assuming they can avoid too much politicking). The big one is the F35 (and associated squadron) numbers - for which one hopes the IR will recognise that 9 and 4 squadrons (inc OEUs etc) is too small a force structure in a more competitive era.
The NAO is a slightly...strange organization, as its brief is, well, auditing, on the presumption that people will spend too much public money if left unattended. The problem with this is that it encounters something like this, where the fundamental problem is that the government needs to crack on and buy important parts of the capability, and it doesn't really have either a remit or a language to say so. The further problem is that if it did, it would be a sort of National Is The Government Doing Stuff Office, and that's really what parliament is meant to do.
"on the presumption that people will spend too much public money if left unattended. "
Now there's someone whose got it right - pork barrels, bridges to nowhere, jobs for mates, contracts for your constituency. its the same the whole world over
Now there's someone whose got it right - pork barrels, bridges to nowhere, jobs for mates, contracts for your constituency. its the same the whole world over
Thread Starter
Here is a link to an article about the role of escort carriers and their aircraft during the Arctic Convoys.
Typically they would carry fighters for air defence, protecting the convoy or other force beyond the range of the ships' guns, and Swordfish for an anti U boat role, working with long range aircraft and frigates and destroyers with ASDIC and weapons like Hedgehog or Squid. In the Atlantic the air threat was not from Stukas and the like, but from long range aircraft that could attack shipping and doing reece for the U boats. The escort carrier was indispensable in protecting both Atlantic and Arctic Convoys. Did they get enough publicity post war?
The need to protect shipping and naval forces with organic fighters and multiple ASW helicopters saved RN carrier aviation, and led to the Invincible with Sea Kings for ASW and Sea Harriers for dealing with Soviet Naval Aviation aircraft such as Bears. The larger US carriers could perform the same roles.
Why can people not accept our carriers will be able to provide defence for crisis response shipping or amphibious forces, with F-35B Lightning and Merlin HM2? In any operation with a major need for AAW or ASW capabilities, then you need a carrier.
When is NATO doing another Exercise Deep Blue? This time we can provide not only the flagship, ASW helicopters, frigates, and an SSN, but we will be able to intercept simulated hostile aircraft.
Typically they would carry fighters for air defence, protecting the convoy or other force beyond the range of the ships' guns, and Swordfish for an anti U boat role, working with long range aircraft and frigates and destroyers with ASDIC and weapons like Hedgehog or Squid. In the Atlantic the air threat was not from Stukas and the like, but from long range aircraft that could attack shipping and doing reece for the U boats. The escort carrier was indispensable in protecting both Atlantic and Arctic Convoys. Did they get enough publicity post war?
The need to protect shipping and naval forces with organic fighters and multiple ASW helicopters saved RN carrier aviation, and led to the Invincible with Sea Kings for ASW and Sea Harriers for dealing with Soviet Naval Aviation aircraft such as Bears. The larger US carriers could perform the same roles.
Why can people not accept our carriers will be able to provide defence for crisis response shipping or amphibious forces, with F-35B Lightning and Merlin HM2? In any operation with a major need for AAW or ASW capabilities, then you need a carrier.
When is NATO doing another Exercise Deep Blue? This time we can provide not only the flagship, ASW helicopters, frigates, and an SSN, but we will be able to intercept simulated hostile aircraft.
"Why can people not accept our carriers will be able to provide defence for crisis response shipping or amphibious forces, with F-35B Lightning and Merlin HM2? In any operation with a major need for AAW or ASW capabilities, then you need a carrier."
No-one is arguing about that - what the nay-sayers believe is that any such operation is very very unlikely and if it did brew up then the UK carriers wouldn't be a major contribution - or not for long.
It's 75 years since WW2 and we have had a single police action that required UK carriers - that's a very expensive insurance policy - especially when its bought at the cost of reducing the flexibility to deploy an ever decreasing number of escorts elsewhere across the globe.
No-one is arguing about that - what the nay-sayers believe is that any such operation is very very unlikely and if it did brew up then the UK carriers wouldn't be a major contribution - or not for long.
It's 75 years since WW2 and we have had a single police action that required UK carriers - that's a very expensive insurance policy - especially when its bought at the cost of reducing the flexibility to deploy an ever decreasing number of escorts elsewhere across the globe.
It's 75 years since WW2 and we have had a single police action that required UK carriers - that's a very expensive insurance policy - especially when its bought at the cost of reducing the flexibility to deploy an ever decreasing number of escorts elsewhere across the globe.
Inexpensive compared to others - anyone who understands where the money goes is pretty clear the carriers are a long way from the biggest pot.
Once again, complete lack of understanding of "escorts" vs task group. What pray, are we deploying these escorts around the globe to escort? They do "stuff". Is that "stuff" more or less effective than a task group?
Significantly more than one action.
Inexpensive compared to others - anyone who understands where the money goes is pretty clear the carriers are a long way from the biggest pot.
Once again, complete lack of understanding of "escorts" vs task group. What pray, are we deploying these escorts around the globe to escort? They do "stuff". Is that "stuff" more or less effective than a task group?
Inexpensive compared to others - anyone who understands where the money goes is pretty clear the carriers are a long way from the biggest pot.
Once again, complete lack of understanding of "escorts" vs task group. What pray, are we deploying these escorts around the globe to escort? They do "stuff". Is that "stuff" more or less effective than a task group?
Boffin - as we all know and the RN are happy to keep telling us all RN and RFA vessels not in overhaul or training are deployed on a wide variety of missions in an enormous variety of locations.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...ity/operations currently lists the areas and https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-an...-activity/news lists latest news which covers vessels in Arctic, S Georgia, the West Indies, the Gulf, the Med , E Scotland.......................
These are almost all single ship deployments and presumably are considered important to the national security no?
The RN has no spare ships sitting around - therefore if you form a Carrier Task Force with 2 x T45's, 2 x T23's and 2 RFA's those vessels are no longer available to cover the areas were they are currently deployed - you have a great deal of force , but you only have it in one location. Those escorts are protecting a carrier in the N Atlantic - they can't be in the Gulf at the same time, nor in the Med... the argument about the RN carriers is not that they're not nice to have but that in a Navy which was stretched to breaking point before their arrival something which we currently feel is necessary has to give to protect them.