Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
On the topic of simulation and training - there are other things to be considered. Such as:
Royal Navy Carrier Strike Group put to the test (January 2017)
The Commander UK Carrier Strike Group (COMUKCSG) battle staff has been conducting transatlantic exercises ahead of the arrival in Portsmouth later this year of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.
RN personnel have been taking part in Fleet Synthetic Training exercises used to put US Navy carrier strike groups through their paces.
Working from the Maritime Composite Training System site at HMS COLLINGWOOD, US carrier strike groups, including the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN, have worked with ops room personnel from HMS DRAGON and HMS RICHMOND, both of which played the vital protection role for the carrier.
Regular and reserve personnel from across the Naval Service, as well as colleagues from the RAF and defence experts from the US have also been involved in the role-playing.
The latest exercise saw COMUKCSG tested in warfighting techniques involving HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and 36 F-35B strike fighter jets.
The recent deployment of HMS Ocean
As reported here, HMS Ocean returned not so long ago from a deployment which included command of the CTF 50 task group.
Captain Pedre said the patrol was historic for the length of the deployment and because of the command role of the ship for Commander Task Force 50 in the Gulf - the first Royal Navy warship to take on this role with the American fleet which usually takes this lead role from one of their carriers.
He said their spell in charge of the force has served as a vital stepping stone when it comes to operating the UK’s new aircraft carriers in the region in the future.
Later...
The final confirmation of the RN’s ability to direct aircraft carrier strike operations – looking forward to the new QUEEN ELIZABETH ships joining the Royal Navy fleet - was a three-day exercise in the central Gulf involving four navies, 19 ships and ten helicopters.
“We have pushed the boundaries of what we can operate,” says Capt Pedre. “This deployment will stand us in good stead with the QUEEN ELIZABETH.”
So what of this exercise - Unified Trident? It does get a mention here:
The ship has operated with 12 different planes, including a number of surveillance aircraft.
Does that mean twelve different types, or just twelve aircraft?
Yes - ship/aircraft integration matters
On this thread, and others most notably throughout the post SDSR 10 Decision to axe Harrier thread, many have persisted on describing carriers simply as floating airfields, and ignoring the role the ship plays in enabling flying.
I am reminded of this (from an RN Pilot) from a 2006 PPRuNe thread:
....if we want to tell MPs that we have a carrier ready to go that means getting the whole ship working to recover and throw off jets. That means the MCO getting the ATO, the stokers getting the donks up to ramming speed, the briefo's being ready on time, the tractor drivers getting the strike ready at the back having seen them all taxy into the grave yard......
...and from 2013 (and getting ready for QEC - including the use of simulation):
The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.
As for getting the right ship's head and Wind Over Deck for aircraft launch and recovery, see this from the ARRSE CVF thread:
At the end of the day it is the OOW who decides Green or Red. FLYCO can jump up and down all they like but they do not have Charge of the ship It is all in those words "I have the ship". However when conducting flying operations a CVF or LPH will have the FLYCO request flying course to meet the flying programme. The OOW will give a approval to commence operations but can always cancel that authorisation if they need to manoeuvre etc. At the end of the day a 23 year old junior officer has a lot of power on a warship and only the CO, XO or other delegated officer (say Spec N) can override them and then only by taking Charge with the word 'I have the ship" or issuing a conning order.
Royal Navy Carrier Strike Group put to the test (January 2017)
The Commander UK Carrier Strike Group (COMUKCSG) battle staff has been conducting transatlantic exercises ahead of the arrival in Portsmouth later this year of HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH.
RN personnel have been taking part in Fleet Synthetic Training exercises used to put US Navy carrier strike groups through their paces.
Working from the Maritime Composite Training System site at HMS COLLINGWOOD, US carrier strike groups, including the USS HARRY S. TRUMAN, have worked with ops room personnel from HMS DRAGON and HMS RICHMOND, both of which played the vital protection role for the carrier.
Regular and reserve personnel from across the Naval Service, as well as colleagues from the RAF and defence experts from the US have also been involved in the role-playing.
The latest exercise saw COMUKCSG tested in warfighting techniques involving HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH and 36 F-35B strike fighter jets.
The recent deployment of HMS Ocean
As reported here, HMS Ocean returned not so long ago from a deployment which included command of the CTF 50 task group.
Captain Pedre said the patrol was historic for the length of the deployment and because of the command role of the ship for Commander Task Force 50 in the Gulf - the first Royal Navy warship to take on this role with the American fleet which usually takes this lead role from one of their carriers.
He said their spell in charge of the force has served as a vital stepping stone when it comes to operating the UK’s new aircraft carriers in the region in the future.
Later...
The final confirmation of the RN’s ability to direct aircraft carrier strike operations – looking forward to the new QUEEN ELIZABETH ships joining the Royal Navy fleet - was a three-day exercise in the central Gulf involving four navies, 19 ships and ten helicopters.
“We have pushed the boundaries of what we can operate,” says Capt Pedre. “This deployment will stand us in good stead with the QUEEN ELIZABETH.”
So what of this exercise - Unified Trident? It does get a mention here:
The ship has operated with 12 different planes, including a number of surveillance aircraft.
Does that mean twelve different types, or just twelve aircraft?
Yes - ship/aircraft integration matters
On this thread, and others most notably throughout the post SDSR 10 Decision to axe Harrier thread, many have persisted on describing carriers simply as floating airfields, and ignoring the role the ship plays in enabling flying.
I am reminded of this (from an RN Pilot) from a 2006 PPRuNe thread:
....if we want to tell MPs that we have a carrier ready to go that means getting the whole ship working to recover and throw off jets. That means the MCO getting the ATO, the stokers getting the donks up to ramming speed, the briefo's being ready on time, the tractor drivers getting the strike ready at the back having seen them all taxy into the grave yard......
...and from 2013 (and getting ready for QEC - including the use of simulation):
The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. At least there is a team of people looking into this issue and both deckcrew, aircrew and engineers are being appropriately positioned to give them some exposure to this dangerous environment prior to QEC.
As for getting the right ship's head and Wind Over Deck for aircraft launch and recovery, see this from the ARRSE CVF thread:
At the end of the day it is the OOW who decides Green or Red. FLYCO can jump up and down all they like but they do not have Charge of the ship It is all in those words "I have the ship". However when conducting flying operations a CVF or LPH will have the FLYCO request flying course to meet the flying programme. The OOW will give a approval to commence operations but can always cancel that authorisation if they need to manoeuvre etc. At the end of the day a 23 year old junior officer has a lot of power on a warship and only the CO, XO or other delegated officer (say Spec N) can override them and then only by taking Charge with the word 'I have the ship" or issuing a conning order.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day it is the OOW who decides Green or Red. FLYCO can jump up and down all they like but they do not have Charge of the ship It is all in those words "I have the ship". However when conducting flying operations a CVF or LPH will have the FLYCO request flying course to meet the flying programme. The OOW will give a approval to commence operations but can always cancel that authorisation if they need to manoeuvre etc. At the end of the day a 23 year old junior officer has a lot of power on a warship and only the CO, XO or other delegated officer (say Spec N) can override them and then only by taking Charge with the word 'I have the ship" or issuing a conning order.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
That wisdom resonates with me also. It is archaic, dis-Joint and frankly ridiculous to view the aircraft onboard as purely weapon systems of the ship, to be used solely at the behest and whim of the Captain and his team. The Captain is the head of the ship (or MTG if roled as Cdre) and responsible for the 600+ souls on board; he directs and empowers his people to carry out their duties. Such duties are ensuring flying operations can be conducted safely. Without those on duty, not a wheel would turn. The same could be argued for an airfield, quite easily. The difference is the environment - at sea everything is trying to kill you as an aviator, and when you least expect it, but I know you know this only too well (this is to try and help those that don't!)
PersonalIy, I don't subscribe wholly to the simplistic 'floating airfield' derisory remark but there undeniable similarities: The role of the carrier is to get the aircraft where required, able to conduct their missions (which might well be to protect the MTG!); it's why they carry the aircraft - but ultimately those aircraft are at the end of a line of enablers. The jets and helicopters do it all at higher speeds, and, when needed, with a large bang at the end. The critical bit is to in no way stymie the aircraft's capabilities and role through misuse, poor understanding and appreciation, ignorance or Service pettiness. That helps nobody, weakens the end product, and puts everyone backwards not forwards.
Instead it just needs to get done. Together. Jointly. Ignoring the dinosaurs of the past (even the recent past), because those dinosaurs clearly demonstrate zero understanding of the capability at all, especially when one reads some of the spiteful tosh they complain about to the various Ministers and News columns.
So, rant off (sorry!) and let's get cracking. It'll be what we make it.
That wisdom resonates with me also. It is archaic, dis-Joint and frankly ridiculous to view the aircraft onboard as purely weapon systems of the ship, to be used solely at the behest and whim of the Captain and his team. The Captain is the head of the ship (or MTG if roled as Cdre) and responsible for the 600+ souls on board; he directs and empowers his people to carry out their duties. Such duties are ensuring flying operations can be conducted safely. Without those on duty, not a wheel would turn. The same could be argued for an airfield, quite easily. The difference is the environment - at sea everything is trying to kill you as an aviator, and when you least expect it, but I know you know this only too well (this is to try and help those that don't!)
PersonalIy, I don't subscribe wholly to the simplistic 'floating airfield' derisory remark but there undeniable similarities: The role of the carrier is to get the aircraft where required, able to conduct their missions (which might well be to protect the MTG!); it's why they carry the aircraft - but ultimately those aircraft are at the end of a line of enablers. The jets and helicopters do it all at higher speeds, and, when needed, with a large bang at the end. The critical bit is to in no way stymie the aircraft's capabilities and role through misuse, poor understanding and appreciation, ignorance or Service pettiness. That helps nobody, weakens the end product, and puts everyone backwards not forwards.
Instead it just needs to get done. Together. Jointly. Ignoring the dinosaurs of the past (even the recent past), because those dinosaurs clearly demonstrate zero understanding of the capability at all, especially when one reads some of the spiteful tosh they complain about to the various Ministers and News columns.
So, rant off (sorry!) and let's get cracking. It'll be what we make it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
From my reading there are many stories about the USN carriers turning off wind whilst an aircraft is approaching (usually at night). Thankfully the aircrew survive - usually humourously. At least one RAN FAA S2E/G was on finals to see MELBOURNE moving one way or t'uther. An A4G was lost overboard because the Bridge ordered a turn during a storm when the A4G was being moved - the black shoe excuse - the aircraft in FlyOne not visible from bridge, view blocked by an S2. The A4G brakeman in a float coat survived his ordeal, being rescued by a nearby destroyer rescue swimmer. Sadly not many - if any - RAN Carrier Captains had FAA experience, sometimes aircrew under blackshoe instruction may have been on the bridge to impart some wisdom. 
Steve George has written a great article 'why a carrier is not an airfield' in 2012; however it may have a different title online: It used to be here & here: (I'll attempt to upload a PDF of it - SUCCESS! - it is PRN - reprinted)
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf
&
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/
Steve George has written a great article 'why a carrier is not an airfield' in 2012; however it may have a different title online: It used to be here & here: (I'll attempt to upload a PDF of it - SUCCESS! - it is PRN - reprinted)
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf
&
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 2nd May 2017 at 18:30. Reason: add PDF
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The same could be argued for an airfield
Found it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stru...ir_Force#Group
Thread Starter
Sorry for the delay in replying - the last few days have been a bit hectic.
Is the Captain's background really a factor, or the fact that the USN takes it very seriously, with carrier qualification, work ups, constant training, and integration of ship and air wing? Practice make perfect!
I am pretty certain that aboard a (RN) carrier/LPH it is FLYCO that gives 'Yes' or 'No' to both launch or take off - either the Cdr (Air) or the Lt Cdr (Flying), both of whom are aviators. So they (or the LSO) will request a flying course/speed from the OOW - who also has to maintain situational awareness of things such as other aircraft, navigational hazards, or ship defects.
What is wrong with seeing the aircraft as the ship's weapons (and sensors)? Why does this imply they are solely to be used at the Captain's behest? A Minehunter's weapons are her sonar, mine disposal system, and divers. Would you say they are for her Captain's whim? Of course not, all the ships in the task group are there to perform a role as part of a task group/joint force.
The reason referring to a carrier as a 'floating airfield' alarms me is that it misses the point - a carrier is completely different with both advantages and complexities.
Originally Posted by KenV
The above account seems to confirm the wisdom of requiring only Naval Aviators to captain aircraft carriers in the USN. In the "black shoe" world vs "brown shoe" world of a USN aircraft carrier (black shoe are ship's company officers, brown shoe are carrier airwing officers) the captain of a USN aircraft carrier ALWAYS wears wings of gold and brown shoes. This ensures that the airboss has the influence and clout he needs to get the aviation job done.
I am pretty certain that aboard a (RN) carrier/LPH it is FLYCO that gives 'Yes' or 'No' to both launch or take off - either the Cdr (Air) or the Lt Cdr (Flying), both of whom are aviators. So they (or the LSO) will request a flying course/speed from the OOW - who also has to maintain situational awareness of things such as other aircraft, navigational hazards, or ship defects.
Originally Posted by MSOCS
That wisdom resonates with me also. It is archaic, dis-Joint and frankly ridiculous to view the aircraft onboard as purely weapon systems of the ship, to be used solely at the behest and whim of the Captain and his team. The Captain is the head of the ship (or MTG if roled as Cdre) and responsible for the 600+ souls on board; he directs and empowers his people to carry out their duties. Such duties are ensuring flying operations can be conducted safely. Without those on duty, not a wheel would turn. The same could be argued for an airfield, quite easily. The difference is the environment - at sea everything is trying to kill you as an aviator, and when you least expect it, but I know you know this only too well (this is to try and help those that don't!)
The reason referring to a carrier as a 'floating airfield' alarms me is that it misses the point - a carrier is completely different with both advantages and complexities.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,575
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Minister says that aircraft carrier... 06 May 2017
"...[DefSec Michael Fallon] said the new carrier would be undergoing sea trials within ‘the next few weeks’ before arriving in the city later this year...." Minister says that aircraft carrier should be here by autumn - The News
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Depends if it ever intends to deploy to an area where there is a threat without being in a TF including a US carrier and its escorts.
From my reading there are many stories about the USN carriers turning off wind whilst an aircraft is approaching (usually at night). Thankfully the aircrew survive - usually humourously. At least one RAN FAA S2E/G was on finals to see MELBOURNE moving one way or t'uther. An A4G was lost overboard because the Bridge ordered a turn during a storm when the A4G was being moved - the black shoe excuse - the aircraft in FlyOne not visible from bridge, view blocked by an S2. The A4G brakeman in a float coat survived his ordeal, being rescued by a nearby destroyer rescue swimmer. Sadly not many - if any - RAN Carrier Captains had FAA experience, sometimes aircrew under blackshoe instruction may have been on the bridge to impart some wisdom.
Steve George has written a great article 'why a carrier is not an airfield' in 2012; however it may have a different title online: It used to be here & here: (I'll attempt to upload a PDF of it - SUCCESS! - it is PRN - reprinted)
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf
&
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/
Steve George has written a great article 'why a carrier is not an airfield' in 2012; however it may have a different title online: It used to be here & here: (I'll attempt to upload a PDF of it - SUCCESS! - it is PRN - reprinted)
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf
&
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/
Ah, happy days. Swing the lamp!
Thread Starter
OAP
You are aware they are mostly bought and paid for?
As for our needs - well it might have escaped your attention but the RN recently commanded CTF 50 (normally commanded from a US flat top) for several months. Surely being able to do it and hit the terrorists ashore ourselves would have made much more sense?
Also being able to deal with over flights, and carry out long range ASW with multiple helicopters based aboard the carrier might be useful in facing up to Russia.
HH
As I understand it, QE and POW will routinely deploy with a Type 45 destroyer, one or two frigates, an SSN, and a couple of RFAs. This is strangely similar to a USN carrier deploying with a cruiser and a couple of destroyers. See here for an example.
Remember:
1. The number of ships devoted to protecting the carrier is actually quite low.
2. The carrier provides C3 for other ships in theatre.
3. Ships in a task group can move and be retasked.
You are aware they are mostly bought and paid for?
As for our needs - well it might have escaped your attention but the RN recently commanded CTF 50 (normally commanded from a US flat top) for several months. Surely being able to do it and hit the terrorists ashore ourselves would have made much more sense?
Also being able to deal with over flights, and carry out long range ASW with multiple helicopters based aboard the carrier might be useful in facing up to Russia.
HH
As I understand it, QE and POW will routinely deploy with a Type 45 destroyer, one or two frigates, an SSN, and a couple of RFAs. This is strangely similar to a USN carrier deploying with a cruiser and a couple of destroyers. See here for an example.
Remember:
1. The number of ships devoted to protecting the carrier is actually quite low.
2. The carrier provides C3 for other ships in theatre.
3. Ships in a task group can move and be retasked.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 12th Oct 2017 at 17:32.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF - it's not that I think we can't form a small CBG - we can as you detail
BUT what else will we have left?
We have had serious problems keeping a single T45 in active service over the last two years - and we normaly appear to have only 2 SSN's on patrol at any one time.. we have 2 Fast Fleet tankers and by 2019 4 Tidesprings - supporting the CBG will probably require two out of the 6 available tankers. We're getting "up to 12 " T26's - let's hope for 10 - so maybe 3 on active sduty at one time to replace the T23's - which we kept 4-5 on duty.
A CBG has to train together to be effective and so these ships will be committed for quite a long period
I foresee that a substantial proportion of the Navy - which is already stretched to breaking point - will be tied up around the Carrier and not available for the tasks which are cuurently considered to be required. Something will have to give I'm afraid
BUT what else will we have left?
We have had serious problems keeping a single T45 in active service over the last two years - and we normaly appear to have only 2 SSN's on patrol at any one time.. we have 2 Fast Fleet tankers and by 2019 4 Tidesprings - supporting the CBG will probably require two out of the 6 available tankers. We're getting "up to 12 " T26's - let's hope for 10 - so maybe 3 on active sduty at one time to replace the T23's - which we kept 4-5 on duty.
A CBG has to train together to be effective and so these ships will be committed for quite a long period
I foresee that a substantial proportion of the Navy - which is already stretched to breaking point - will be tied up around the Carrier and not available for the tasks which are cuurently considered to be required. Something will have to give I'm afraid
Harry - the T45 availability has been seriously overplayed in the press. Don't believe all you read.
6 Tankers is a very high number indeed - far greater than all other NATO (or most other navies) other than the USN. The need for tankers isn't as great as some make it out to be for individual escorts, so 6 is plenty to give availability. You'll only need one hull anyway due to the different operating routines of RFA vessels.
6 Tankers is a very high number indeed - far greater than all other NATO (or most other navies) other than the USN. The need for tankers isn't as great as some make it out to be for individual escorts, so 6 is plenty to give availability. You'll only need one hull anyway due to the different operating routines of RFA vessels.
Thank you fanatic.
As usual, for a fanatic, your points are simplistic and bear no weight. There is no doubt; the second canoe is already waiting for the scrap man and the first will be going there, just as soon as there is a suitable political opportunity.
The spending on UK carrier capability is totally inappropriate. Other aspects of UK Forces and capability are far more deserving than a big floating gin-palace.
OAP
As usual, for a fanatic, your points are simplistic and bear no weight. There is no doubt; the second canoe is already waiting for the scrap man and the first will be going there, just as soon as there is a suitable political opportunity.
The spending on UK carrier capability is totally inappropriate. Other aspects of UK Forces and capability are far more deserving than a big floating gin-palace.
OAP
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimlad - I 'm sure that the T45 situation is (relatively) short term due to resolvable technical issues (and maybe some short term cash shortage?) but I still worry that we're ADDING roles when we clearly don't have enough vessels to do what we currently want to do.
If we had a couple more 45's, maybe 16 26s and a couple more Astutes coming as well as the manpower to man them I'd say we could do it - but today's papers are full of another SDR after the election with a 60day mini-Review underway now at No.10 and no-one seems to think there'll be more $$$
If we had a couple more 45's, maybe 16 26s and a couple more Astutes coming as well as the manpower to man them I'd say we could do it - but today's papers are full of another SDR after the election with a 60day mini-Review underway now at No.10 and no-one seems to think there'll be more $$$
Harry - RN has been stopping roles for some time. The last 1SL went to PM and made clear what was at risk if it wasnt allowed to stop doing stuff. Cost him hos shot at CDS but he was listened to.
No idea on the truth regarding this so the usual caveats apply.
"Pres. Donald Trump has weighed in on the future configuration of the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet.
Trump is insisting that the service return to installing steam catapults in place of the state-of-the-art Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, that was developed for the Gerald R. Ford–class super carriers.
The president is explicit in his directive—all future U.S. Navy carriers will revert to steam catapults. ..."
Trump Said All Future U.S. Navy Carriers Will Use ?Goddamned Steam? Catapults | War Is Boring
"Pres. Donald Trump has weighed in on the future configuration of the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier fleet.
Trump is insisting that the service return to installing steam catapults in place of the state-of-the-art Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, that was developed for the Gerald R. Ford–class super carriers.
The president is explicit in his directive—all future U.S. Navy carriers will revert to steam catapults. ..."
Trump Said All Future U.S. Navy Carriers Will Use ?Goddamned Steam? Catapults | War Is Boring