Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Jimlad1]

1 x SO1 head of each area plus XO and a couple of other roles. Doesn't seem over manned to me, seems about right to recognise senior ship needing senior experience - also helpful to provide career path for officers going through system too.

[alfred_the_great]

Originally Posted by ExGrunt

That seems wildly over officered at the OF-4 Commander (Lt Col equivalent) level for 672 all ranks setup. Especially, as on top of this will be the flag officer and all his hangers on.

EG

With the exception of The Commander (which is his title as well as his rank), the other SO1s will be double-hatted as part of the CSG staff, and expected to have CSG/TG roles as well.

The Commander runs the ship internally, allowing The Captain (again, position as well as rank) to look "up and out".

[SpazSinbad]

You Tube

[MSOCS]

WEBF,

I'm sorry but ultimately a carrier is a floating airfield, but with more complication than a land-based airfield. Cdre Jerry Kyd has even said so himself, on the record, and he's skipper of QNLZ.

Other than the Ship being on DFC, ostensibly assuring that recoveries are "into wind" and maximise WOD to reduce relative speed over the deck on landing, all the other things you list are just as applicable to an airfield.

You can squinny all you want about my point of view, but I've plenty of experience flying from land and carriers. Bottom line: the carrier is a floating airfield and has all the departments and procedures required to make it an effective one. They are slightly modified to land-based, but that's only to achieve a safe launch and recovery.

[SpazSinbad]

A longtime poster to this forum (not me) would disagree 'MSOCS'. Sadly the 10 page PDF article attached MAY be on the internet somewhere but for the moment it is here. Page 2 with sub heading "The Airfield and the Aircraft Carrier Compared" is particularly relevant.

[FODPlod]

Originally Posted by SpazSinbad

A longtime poster to this forum (not me) would disagree 'MSOCS'. Sadly the 10 page PDF article attached MAY be on the internet somewhere but for the moment it is here. Page 2 with sub heading "The Airfield and the Aircraft Carrier Compared" is particularly relevant.

Stop baiting @MSOCS. You'll only make him squinny that a destroyer or frigate is no more than a floating missile/gun battery.

His parochial point of view amply demonstrates why FAA aircrew have such a better understanding of maritime power and the versatility of warships, especially aircraft carriers.

[SpazSinbad]

Some HOO and then some HAA about JPALS for CVFs and then some Helioplickers? Come on. USN wouldn't have a bar of it - not even maybe Super Hornets (but may change).

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...ince_of_wales/
&
'No decision' on Raytheon GPS landing system aboard Brit aircraft carriers ? The Register

[idle bystander]

His parochial point of view amply demonstrates why FAA aircrew have such a better understanding of maritime power and the versatility of warships, especially aircraft carriers.

Indeed, and not just aircrew. MSOCS and his like forget that an aircraft carrier is a WARSHIP. Satisfactory operation of the weapon system requires very close coordination of all the ship's departments. As an example see this:

Judging by the position fot the splash target, which is about half a mile (1.5mins at 20kt) astern, and has yet to complete the turn, the ship has been steady on the flying course for less than a minute; and the first aircraft is crossing the round-down, with the next turning onto finals. Meanwhile, on the horizon, whilst the main body steams blithely on and the anti-submarine screen has been adjusted to cover the carrier. I'd like to see any shore-based ATCO pull off that feat of timing.

[SpazSinbad]

No landing but overflight QE - hells bells.

You Tube

[Heathrow Harry]

Is it actually illegal?

It should be but it would be an interesting charge to frame......

[salad-dodger]

Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry

Is it actually illegal?

Yes.

S-D

[Hangarshuffle]

What's the charge? What laws broken? Not a drone flyer. Its not an RN dockyard or MOD base...its Invergordon.
Is it proximity to a maritime vessel that's the law breaker?
I've been listening to the commentary posted on you tube. The operator of the drone actually went up to explain himself to the RN but couldn't get past the MOD police at the gate.
Surprised the RN haven't got an armed upper deck sentry or two about for this sort of thing. But realistically what could they do anyway? Outside ROE that's for sure!
You can clearly see the MOD craft in the background.
The beauty and ability of a semi skilled drone operation very plain to see (and we are going to see a lot more).

[MSOCS]

Originally Posted by idle bystander

Indeed, and not just aircrew. MSOCS and his like forget that an aircraft carrier is a WARSHIP. Satisfactory operation of the weapon system requires very close coordination of all the ship's departments. As an example see this:

Judging by the position fot the splash target, which is about half a mile (1.5mins at 20kt) astern, and has yet to complete the turn, the ship has been steady on the flying course for less than a minute; and the first aircraft is crossing the round-down, with the next turning onto finals. Meanwhile, on the horizon, whilst the main body steams blithely on and the anti-submarine screen has been adjusted to cover the carrier. I'd like to see any shore-based ATCO pull off that feat of timing.

Warship? You believe the Carrier is the same sort of warship as an FFDD?! Cdre Kyd has himself stated that the carrier "is a floating airfield", so he (I presume) is also of "my ilk". Seriously, the floating airfield requires defending - not like many land-based airfields sure, but FOBs require defences of a different nature - but ultimately the weapon system on a carrier are the organic assets that take off and land on it. A couple of CIWS and .50 cals does not make the carrier the same "ilk" of warship as an FFDD. Not by a long stretch, yet the fundamentals of fire and flood control, manoeuvres and air C2 endure.

Stop deluding yourselves - the Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth hath said so from his very mouth and he knows better than you!

Oh, and ref your elitist point about land-based AFCO successfully carrying out the timing, i've personally witnessed absolute carnage at sea when I flew Harriers from CVS's....at one stage we were invited to conduct Case 3 approaches and join the "cake stand", only to have to point out to the sea-based ATCO that the cake stand at that time was in a mountain. The ship was too close to land and pointing the wrong way. Oh, and not to mention the numerous times "mother" wasn't where she promised she'd be at the end of a mission when fuel was low... Don't be too smug about crabs vs fish heads; both have stunned and embarrassed themselves in equal measure and neither can claim superiority over the other.

[desk wizard]

Air Navigation Order 2016

Small unmanned surveillance aircraft

95.—(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are—

(a)over or within 150 metres of any congested area;

(b)over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;

(c)within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or

(d)subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.

(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

(5) In this article, “a small unmanned surveillance aircraft” means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

[SpazSinbad]

Two UK papers state the drone landed on deck to take a photo - here is one of 'em - pics on facefook apparently (I'm not on it though).

HMS Queen Elizabeth is outmanoeuvred by a £300 drone | Daily Mail Online
&
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...=1502485602065

[SpazSinbad]

CDRE Kyd is a fish head [p'raps has caught some crabspeak dis ease about 'hotels afloat with golf courses'] seems to me - albeit former captain of HMS Ark Royal - thusly he speaks 'oddly' of birdie issues whilst birdies will (whenever motivated) speak oddly of fish head issues. I personally would not trust a fish head to speak precisely of birdie dogma. JACKspeak is a wonderful thing, one of the nicest inventions of the RN transferred for example to the RAN and of course modified and modified again in the RAN FAA etc.

The yank birdies 'brown shoes' like to gee up the 'black shoe' fish heads by 'landing on the boat' (aircraft carrier). Youse know the drill. I like to 'suck back in the hold back' but do I need to explain? Anyhoo I'll look out the winda (porthole) or maybe go up on the roof (fright deck).

AND... just to DRONE ON.... https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/comm...-unchallenged/

"...HMS Queen Elizabeth is to arrive in Portsmouth on the 18th of this month and we’ve been invited to attend. Ironically, the invitation reads:

“PLEASE NOTE THAT DRONES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED AT THIS EVENT. Measures will be in place to counter drones other than one being flown by the Royal Navy.”

We have reached out to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance for comment. An MoD spokesperson said: “We take the security of HMS Queen Elizabeth very seriously. This incident has been reported to Police Scotland, an investigation is underway and we stepped up our security measures in light of it.”

[FODPlod]

Source for Jerry Kyd quote?

Originally Posted by MSOCS

Warship? You believe the Carrier is the same sort of warship as an FFDD?! Cdre Kyd has himself stated that the carrier "is a floating airfield", so he (I presume) is also of "my ilk"...

Stop deluding yourselves - the Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth hath said so from his very mouth and he knows better than you!...

FFs and DDs are warships that incorporate helos among their weapons systems. Likewise, carriers are warships that incorporate aircraft among their weapons systems although they are able to carry a greater number and wider variety depending on their mission.

I'd be very interested in seeing any source in which Jerry Kyd concedes that an aircraft carrier is no more than a floating airfield, particularly in view of this:

Minister for the armed forces visits Royal Navy future carriers

Originally Posted by Royal Navy 19 Aug 2016

...The Commanding Officer of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Captain Jerry Kyd said:

“The Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers are the product of a pioneering partnership between UK industry and the Ministry of Defence. As the Royal Navy’s flagships for the next 50 years, these ships will employ cutting edge technology to deliver fighting power at sea and over land.

Symbolising our nation in both steel and spirit, the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be powerful ambassadors for Britain on the global stage, in both peace time and times of conflict. These ships truly will be at the forefront of British military power projection for decades for generations to come.”

To my mind, he seems to view carriers as somewhat more than floating airfields.

[MSOCS]

HMS Queen Elizabeth Takes To The Seas

"She's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD...." 0:35

Which is exactly what she is. "She isn't just a ship" by any means...far from it. QEC will project AIR POWER from the sea for decades to come. However, if you wish to promote her bite, please remember that her teeth are the embarked air and RM assets. The ship's raison d'être is to get the embarked "teeth" arms where they need to be to achieve the broader mission. It isn't a Dreadnought. It's a mobile, four and a half acre AIRFIELD, as the good Cdre clearly states.

[SpazSinbad]

Thanks for the video 'MSOCS'. I can see the RN FAA ethos is in trouble. Here is the quote from the aforementioned article above.

‘How Carrier operations Work’ no date c.2013, Steve George BSc MSc CEng FRAeS Cdr RN

“...The Airfield and the Aircraft Carrier Compared...
...Aircraft carriers have to contain all these facilities onboard, and so it is often assumed that they are enormous objects. Indeed, the term ‘floating airfield’ is often used to describe them, and this is understandable. With their apparently huge flight decks, towering structures and complex fittings and equipment sprouting from their sides, they can resemble the vast ‘starships’ of science fiction. Most people, if asked to compare an aircraft carrier with an airfield, would say that they are about the same size. However, this is not the case....

...The airfield completely and massively dwarfs the ship. The aircraft carrier would fit comfortably on to one of the aircraft parking areas. And yet this ship is capable of taking and operating around 70 aircraft. Nearly twice as many aircraft are based in a fraction of the space along with fuel, weapons, people, hangars, workshops and communications systems and are still operated effectively and safely. Clearly, simply ‘downsizing’ or compressing land-based operations cannot do this. The solution is a totally different way of operating very different combat aircraft – and these differences, which lead to a totally different ‘ethos’, lie at the heart of naval aviation.

The key difference is the depth of integration between the aircraft and its base. An airfield is an essentially passive supporter of the aircraft – stores, fuel and weapons are delivered to various separated areas to support missions, and the very long runways offer no more than a hard smooth surface to run along on. On board a carrier, the operation of aircraft has to be actively merged with the operation of the ship and its specialist systems, with the result that the aircraft completely depend on the ship to deliver combat capability. This is the central feature of naval aviation, and it leads to a different ‘world’, in which most of the basic tenets and assumptions of land based operation have to be discarded and replaced with different equipment and ways of operating.

The most obvious element of this ‘world’ is the necessity to replace conventional take off and landing methods with completely different ways of launching and recovering aircraft using catapults and arresting gear – often described as ‘cat and trap’, or by the less elegant acronym CATOBAR (CATapult Operation Barrier [BUT?] Arrested Recovery). As will become clear, these techniques are complemented by a less obvious, but no less vital, culture of ‘naval aviation’ that successfully delivers combat power effectively, reliably, sustainably and safely. This culture drives the organisation & processes of the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Fleet Air Arm (FAA)....” http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012...erations-work/ OR http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-c...fcaropsPTT.pdf

[SpazSinbad]

A more recent GEORGE quote specifically about STOVL (but for ADF) Ops & this LONG article is available online (PHEW) so just a small part is excerpted below. Meanwhile a long article from an RN Wig of Big Admiral Sir John Woodward GBE KCB 'bout difference between FAA & crab ops: http://www.publications.parliament.u...61/761vw39.htm

Making the STOVL F-35B Work for the ADF Steve George, Feb 2015 Defence Technology Review

"Integrating Aircraft and Ships It’s best to start by understanding that putting military aircraft on ships has never been easy. Warships, even the massive US Navy (USN) nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, are not and never will be just ‘floating airfields’ – the raw constraints of physical space have driven naval aviators to develop new ways of launching, recovering, arming, maintaining and repairing aircraft since the earliest days.

But they have consistently succeeded. Effective, safe and sustainable embarked air power has been demonstrated from a wide variety of ship/aircraft combinations over the past 100 years. Maritime fixed-wing aviation is an achievable art – and STOVL makes it even more achievable.

Successful maritime aviation depends on a little known discipline called ‘ship/aircraft integration’. This is a systems engineering challenge, requiring thorough understanding and control of the various interfaces between the ship and the aircraft...." Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2015, Page 1