Future Carrier (Including Costs)
She's hybrid to the extent that they put a reinforced flightdeck on her, a quarter-ramp for unloading vehicles and some berthing spaces and C2 spaces. that's about the extent of her military features.
Having been aboard her in Portsmouth back in 2005, it was obvious she was just a standard Incat ferry with some minimal mods to suit role. Other than comms and messing there were no "military" mods. Her skipper at the time was very forthcoming as to the limitations of the ship. Her superstructure mounts (ally cats have an "interesting" structural arrangement) had cracked on the Translant voyage in SS5.
Having been aboard her in Portsmouth back in 2005, it was obvious she was just a standard Incat ferry with some minimal mods to suit role. Other than comms and messing there were no "military" mods. Her skipper at the time was very forthcoming as to the limitations of the ship. Her superstructure mounts (ally cats have an "interesting" structural arrangement) had cracked on the Translant voyage in SS5.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Also - no CIWS or anything. What on Earth does any of this have to do with CVF?
It will be dangerous enough operating close enough to allow the F-35 to attack anything but littoral targets without AAR support.
Blogs: The Buzz | The National Interest
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: six micro tesla zone
Age: 33
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure this has all ready been discussed in this extensive thread. Although, I read somewhere, that the new carriers will be able to embark 72 a/c maximum load.
To embark 12 F35s, increasing it to 24 supposedly for a combat operation seems like such an underutilisation of the carriers capabilities(even if its less than 72 a/c max). It sounds simplistic, but just by looking at the carriers you would imagine they could carry 72 a/c.
Anyhow, there is talk that the USMC will embark on the carriers intially. I would suggest that there may be a permanent USMC deployment onboard the carriers? I'd imagine from their and our perspective it would be a good training/operational move to be able to embark perhaps a squadron of USMC a/c alongside whatever we end up putting on them.
To embark 12 F35s, increasing it to 24 supposedly for a combat operation seems like such an underutilisation of the carriers capabilities(even if its less than 72 a/c max). It sounds simplistic, but just by looking at the carriers you would imagine they could carry 72 a/c.
Anyhow, there is talk that the USMC will embark on the carriers intially. I would suggest that there may be a permanent USMC deployment onboard the carriers? I'd imagine from their and our perspective it would be a good training/operational move to be able to embark perhaps a squadron of USMC a/c alongside whatever we end up putting on them.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Anyhow, there is talk that the USMC will embark on the carriers intially. I would suggest that there may be a permanent USMC deployment onboard the carriers?
British Naval Commander Wants US Marine Aviation on Aircraft Carrier
US Marine Corps to fly F-35s from HMS Queen Lizzie as UK won't have enough jets
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: six micro tesla zone
Age: 33
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the USMC could also bring AAR onboard in the V22 if they ever get it off the ground, excuse the pun.
Amazing how expensive and vulnerable these floating targets are! Now, let me see, hmmm, wonder where Boris, and the other idiots in HMGov, will send them to do "power projection"? 
With USMC on board, I don't see these canoes doing anything at all, without acting jointly with US Navy 
. Even non-Nato port visits are going to be too risky. Maybe we could sell them?
Just my opinions.
OAP
With USMC on board, I don't see these canoes doing anything at all, without acting jointly with US Navy . Even non-Nato port visits are going to be too risky. Maybe we could sell them?Just my opinions.
OAP
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...y-facts-v2.pdf although Wiki quotes a maximum of 50 aircraft of which 36 will be F-35B
Thread Starter
Onceapilot
Expensive - maybe, maybe not in the grand scheme of things and compared with other MOD projects.
Vulnerable? Is that because people have decided we might go to war in the Pacific against the People's Republic of China on our own, and they have advanced missiles? Or because an unarmed and unhardened ship got damaged by an anti ship missile? You do realise that warships can shoot down missiles and that enemy ISTAR can be disrupted? How many carrier based aircraft have been destroyed by enemy action aboard ship in the last thirty years, and how many sitting on airfields?
Surely you are aware there are carriers and similar warships deployed on operations?
Expensive - maybe, maybe not in the grand scheme of things and compared with other MOD projects.
Vulnerable? Is that because people have decided we might go to war in the Pacific against the People's Republic of China on our own, and they have advanced missiles? Or because an unarmed and unhardened ship got damaged by an anti ship missile? You do realise that warships can shoot down missiles and that enemy ISTAR can be disrupted? How many carrier based aircraft have been destroyed by enemy action aboard ship in the last thirty years, and how many sitting on airfields?
Surely you are aware there are carriers and similar warships deployed on operations?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 15th Oct 2016 at 19:23.
WE Branch Fanatic
Thanks for your reply. Sad to say, expenditure of this order will soon be a thing of the past for UKMil.
Your other two paragraphs show how backward looking and wrong the thinking behind this "replacement for 90% of the rest of the RN" really is. This shrinking island nation is playing the wrong game here!
Cheers
OAP
Thanks for your reply. Sad to say, expenditure of this order will soon be a thing of the past for UKMil.
Your other two paragraphs show how backward looking and wrong the thinking behind this "replacement for 90% of the rest of the RN" really is. This shrinking island nation is playing the wrong game here!
CheersOAP
"replacement for 90% of the rest of the RN"
That's the sort of lazy talk that characterises too much of the debate around the carriers, that and the tired old line along the lines of "shame there are no aircraft to go on them, fnar fnar".
Most of the reduction in the escort force (we had around 50 frigates and destroyers at the end of the cold war) has arisen from an over-enthusiastic cashing in of a "peace dividend" since the late 1980s. The RN may have traded a small number to safeguard the carriers, but that results from a recognition that while a navy comprising only escorts would be good for flying the flag, it would be far more limited in its ability to deliver real military effect.
I'd agree the reduction in escorts has gone too far. But ditching the carriers isn't the way to address that.
That's the sort of lazy talk that characterises too much of the debate around the carriers, that and the tired old line along the lines of "shame there are no aircraft to go on them, fnar fnar".
Most of the reduction in the escort force (we had around 50 frigates and destroyers at the end of the cold war) has arisen from an over-enthusiastic cashing in of a "peace dividend" since the late 1980s. The RN may have traded a small number to safeguard the carriers, but that results from a recognition that while a navy comprising only escorts would be good for flying the flag, it would be far more limited in its ability to deliver real military effect.
I'd agree the reduction in escorts has gone too far. But ditching the carriers isn't the way to address that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
...expenditure of this order will soon be a thing of the past for UKMil
The downgrading of UKMil, Brexit and progressive withdrawal from all external military activity, NATO fragmentation and the complete worthlessness of UN organisms are visible proof that the strategy is well underway.
Imagegear.
A cost (name of thread) is the the redistribution of Naval Service manpower away from RM to RN by approx 600. 43 Cdo to reduce to core Scottish and special escort roles and 42 Cdo to 'rerole' (ie no longer to be a full Cdo like 40 or 45) to undertake Fleet protection. So 3 Cdo Bde down to 2 x manoeuvre units.
Regards
Batco
Regards
Batco
Last edited by BATCO; 16th Oct 2016 at 17:23. Reason: typing error!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No timetable' for eight Clyde frigates
A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built. Eight Type 26 frigates are due to be built on the Clyde, but the UK government has not announced a timescale for the project. Harriet Baldwin faced calls from SNP and Labour MPs to confirm a time-frame for cutting steel on the frigates.
But she said it would be "inappropriate" to do so as negotiations continue.
Work had originally been due to start this year, but SNP defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara predicted during a Commons debate on Tuesday that construction of the ships would not start until at least the summer of next year. He also said the delays could be in part blamed on the economic impact of Brexit, as well as the government committing too much of its procurement budget to renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent. Mr O'Hara told MPs: "It would be an unforgivable betrayal of the Clyde workers if they were the ones that had to pay the price of Brexit, but also the price of Trident."
In reply, Ms Baldwin told the Westminster Hall debate: "The timing of the award of the build contract and the build schedule itself are key components of the ongoing commercial negotiations between the Government and BAE Systems. "We are negotiating a deal that aims to optimise the requirements of the Royal Navy in terms of the capability the ships will deliver, to achieve value for money for defence and the taxpayer, and to deliver a build schedule that drives performance. These negotiations are continuing, so I am not this afternoon in a position to give a specific date as to when an agreement will be reached. To protect the commercial interests of the Ministry of Defence, disclosing any such detail would be inappropriate at this time."
Under questioning from the SNP's Chris Stephens, Ms Baldwin confirmed the national ship building strategy will report by the time of the Autumn Statement on 23 November, which could reveal fresh information about plans for the Type 26 frigates. Ms Baldwin also resisted calls to disclose further reasons behind delays and cuts to the project.
The project has already been cut from 13 to eight new ships, while a target to start cutting steel in May has been delayed indefinitely.
Tory MP Bob Stewart, a former British Army officer, said: "I don't think we need the minister to answer that - the answer is we had no money. "That's why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. We did not have the money, and we actually had to cut our means to suit our coat."
SNP MP Martin Docherty-Hughes said the delays left Scotland and the United Kingdom "dangerously under-defended", adding it was a "tale of under-investment and neglect".
A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built. Eight Type 26 frigates are due to be built on the Clyde, but the UK government has not announced a timescale for the project. Harriet Baldwin faced calls from SNP and Labour MPs to confirm a time-frame for cutting steel on the frigates.
But she said it would be "inappropriate" to do so as negotiations continue.
Work had originally been due to start this year, but SNP defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara predicted during a Commons debate on Tuesday that construction of the ships would not start until at least the summer of next year. He also said the delays could be in part blamed on the economic impact of Brexit, as well as the government committing too much of its procurement budget to renewing the Trident nuclear deterrent. Mr O'Hara told MPs: "It would be an unforgivable betrayal of the Clyde workers if they were the ones that had to pay the price of Brexit, but also the price of Trident."
In reply, Ms Baldwin told the Westminster Hall debate: "The timing of the award of the build contract and the build schedule itself are key components of the ongoing commercial negotiations between the Government and BAE Systems. "We are negotiating a deal that aims to optimise the requirements of the Royal Navy in terms of the capability the ships will deliver, to achieve value for money for defence and the taxpayer, and to deliver a build schedule that drives performance. These negotiations are continuing, so I am not this afternoon in a position to give a specific date as to when an agreement will be reached. To protect the commercial interests of the Ministry of Defence, disclosing any such detail would be inappropriate at this time."
Under questioning from the SNP's Chris Stephens, Ms Baldwin confirmed the national ship building strategy will report by the time of the Autumn Statement on 23 November, which could reveal fresh information about plans for the Type 26 frigates. Ms Baldwin also resisted calls to disclose further reasons behind delays and cuts to the project.
The project has already been cut from 13 to eight new ships, while a target to start cutting steel in May has been delayed indefinitely.
Tory MP Bob Stewart, a former British Army officer, said: "I don't think we need the minister to answer that - the answer is we had no money. "That's why we had to cut down the number of Type 26 ships. We did not have the money, and we actually had to cut our means to suit our coat."
SNP MP Martin Docherty-Hughes said the delays left Scotland and the United Kingdom "dangerously under-defended", adding it was a "tale of under-investment and neglect".