Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 26th Nov 2017, 17:06
  #4601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi again Fanatic.
You might notice that the reply you quote was actually not addressed to you?
Beyond that, I do not intend to restate my position ad nauseum, despite your willingness to do that. My previous posts have covered the subject.
BTW, something new, the Budget didn't look very promising.

OAP
Onceapilot is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2017, 17:37
  #4602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
It's OK, the Navy have so much spare manpower they can afford to send them to London for a month to train up to do the changing of the guard!
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 09:01
  #4603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Area of Operations

Where, in the Northern hemisphere, does the QE class anticipate providing the strategic projection of power? Even with the range of the F-35B (as opposed to F35A or C), it is hard to identify a credible future theatre where Host Nation Support would not permit power projection without the need for a Carrier Strike Group, particularly considering stand-off and A2AD issues.
Add to this the problems associated with supporting the F35B reverse supply chain at range, it is difficult to understand its capability beyond 'soft power'....
Autorev is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 11:01
  #4604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The latest edition of World Naval Review is out and there is big article on the RN

Makes sobering reading- seems to have been a period in early 2017 when we had maybe only one or maybe no SSN at sea, the new T45 engines mods will be expensive and difficult to fit, the last Astute order seems to have disapeared, removing Ocean will seriously affect over teh beach capabilities, and manpower........


They have concerns about the delay in standing up a proper naval F35 squadron and very much doubt the Govt will ever allow the Carriers to beput in harm's way in any serious sense
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 16:11
  #4605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Autorev
...it is difficult to understand its capability beyond 'soft power'....
In the event of soft power failing, it can provide vastly increased sortie rates and mission flexibility owing to closer proximity to the target for a start. Still horses for courses but it's a complementary capability that provides loads of options, especially in terms of mobility and quick redeployment or withdrawal.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 17:21
  #4606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Or withdrawal"

I never realised we were thinking of repeating Norway 1940
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 19:14
  #4607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
mission flexibility owing to closer proximity to the target
That's really my point. How close to the targets is the QE going to get? The ROA of a fully loaded F35B , particularly in LO fit, would necessitate QE sitting well within range of anti shipping missiles. Add to that the list of currently unfounded enablers identified in the recent NAO report, and the capability appears somewhat impotent.
If the carrier will limited to projecting soft power, so be it, but if we want it to do more than that, then let's resource and equip it to do so.
I'm certain any adversary that the QE could be used against, is more than able to make a capability assessment of the threat it presents....
Autorev is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2017, 19:49
  #4608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Or withdrawal"
I never realised we were thinking of repeating Norway 1940
OOh ya bitch! That one stung.

Or at least, it would have stung the warmongering First Sea Lord whose administrative incompetence cost so many British lives in the cockup that he administered there.

He benefited from his own incompetence by capturing the Premiership as a result of his own failures in that abortion of a campaign.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 08:57
  #4609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Caz - i can see why Boris likes WC - both seem to escape with glory from cock-ups that felled lesser men
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 09:29
  #4610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Penryn, Cornwall
Age: 79
Posts: 84
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
@Cazalet33
Originally Posted by Cazalet33
Or at least, it would have stung the warmongering First Sea Lord whose administrative incompetence cost so many British lives in the cockup that he administered there.
Not sure what you've got against Adm of the Fleet Sir Dudley Pound, but there's nothing in my history book the that tells me he "captured the premiership".

The other guy certainly cocked a few things up militarily, but hey, in war "stuff happens" and on balance I think the overwhelming majority of historians would agree that it was right that WC got a lot of credit for his part in winning the war.

Last edited by idle bystander; 1st Dec 2017 at 13:12.
idle bystander is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 12:28
  #4611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not sure WSC "won" the war - but he did keep things alive long enough to bring in the Yanks and the Russians who, I think, have a greater claim to winning it.............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 13:11
  #4612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Penryn, Cornwall
Age: 79
Posts: 84
Received 11 Likes on 8 Posts
@HH
Agree - and edited to add "his part in" winning the war
idle bystander is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 14:17
  #4613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wrongly said First Sea Lord.

I should have said First Lord of the Admiralty.

It was in that post that he cocked up the war planning for the disastrous Norway campaign. It had also been in that post that he initiated the disastrous Dardanelles campaign which was another omnishambles.

To his credit, on the other hand, it was as First Lord of the Admiralty that he promoted the development of what we now call tanks on the naval budget. They were regarded as a naval thing because they were called landships. The word tank was a ruse to confuse German Intelligence with the cover story that the development work was on mobile water tanks for use in the North African desert.
Cazalet33 is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2017, 16:07
  #4614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 86
Posts: 2,498
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
It's rather like owning a Rolls Royce Phantom and a Moped. If the Roller breaks down you can't rescue me-lord and me-lady with the Moped
brakedwell is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 06:02
  #4615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are the RN going to get 2-4 Ospreys for COD? If not replenishment of large items will mean a port call..............................

Of course at $ 73 mm each plus training etc.........................
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 07:40
  #4616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Are the RN going to get 2-4 Ospreys for COD? If not replenishment of large items will mean a port call..............................

Of course at $ 73 mm each plus training etc.........................
Why? What's wrong with Chinooks?

The conventionally-powered carrier HMS Invincible didn't have V-22 Ospreys yet she still holds the record of 166 consecutive days at sea without a port call between April and September 1982.

This even eclipses the US Navy's record of 159 consecutive days at sea set by the nuclear-powered USS Theodore Roosevelt in 1991.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 08:09
  #4617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Autorev
That's really my point. How close to the targets is the QE going to get? The ROA of a fully loaded F35B , particularly in LO fit, would necessitate QE sitting well within range of anti shipping missiles. Add to that the list of currently unfounded enablers identified in the recent NAO report, and the capability appears somewhat impotent.
If the carrier will limited to projecting soft power, so be it, but if we want it to do more than that, then let's resource and equip it to do so.
I'm certain any adversary that the QE could be used against, is more than able to make a capability assessment of the threat it presents....
That's the raison d'etre of the Type 45 AD (Air Defence) destroyers and any accompanying allied AD escorts, not to mention the F-35B in AD role.

The enemy also has the C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Information/Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance) problem of getting close enough to the carrier to locate and and identify it, not to mention providing accurate targeting information to any ASMs.

FS Charles de Gaulle with her Rafales and USS Kearsarge with her much shorter range AV-8Bs managed well enough off Libya during ELLAMY. Their aircraft were able to fly multiple sorties each day owing to their closer proximity to the target area.
FODPlod is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 08:23
  #4618 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,808
Received 19 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by FODPlod
That's the raison d'etre of the Type 45 AD (Air Defence) destroyers and any accompanying allied AD escorts, not to mention the F-35B in AD role.

The enemy also has the C4ISTAR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Information/Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting Acquisition and Reconnaissance) problem of getting close enough to the carrier to locate and and identify it, not to mention providing accurate targeting information to any ASMs.

FS Charles de Gaulle with her Rafales and USS Kearsarge with her much shorter range AV-8Bs managed well enough off Libya during ELLAMY. Their aircraft were able to fly multiple sorties each day owing to their closer proximity to the target area.
Plus - Type 23 or Type 26 frigates will provide extended point defence. Also air to air refuelling will extend the range of F-35B.

Here is an interesting link that was found by an RAF contact on another site. It debunks many of the lazy myths surrounding the carriers:

The myths surrounding the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers
WE Branch Fanatic is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 10:16
  #4619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why? What's wrong with Chinooks?
Absolutely nothing... as long as you are happy for the carrier to remain within 300 miles of land.
In an A2AD environment, we will be hugely constrained - hence my earlier comment on HNS.
Autorev is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2017, 10:55
  #4620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The sunny South
Posts: 819
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Autorev
Originally Posted by FODPlod
Why? What's wrong with Chinooks?
Absolutely nothing... as long as you are happy for the carrier to remain within 300 miles of land...
Why? INVINCIBLE certainly didn't remain within 300 miles of land when she established her record 166 continuous days at sea without a port call. Besides, have you ever heard of 'lily-padding'?

Originally Posted by Autorev
...In an A2AD environment, we will be hugely constrained - hence my earlier comment on HNS.
Why? That's what the AD destroyers and F-35Bs in the AD role are for, especially when combined with Crowsnest.
FODPlod is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.