Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"India, they intend to build their own so they can go 8nto serial production."
that will only take 40 years... they had a ship under construction roll over in dock in 2016
Indian Navy frigate flips over in dock, killing 2 - CNN
that will only take 40 years... they had a ship under construction roll over in dock in 2016
Indian Navy frigate flips over in dock, killing 2 - CNN
Thread Starter
HH
I suspect you have not seen many NATO naval tactical publications. They are geared towards task group operations, and they seem to suggest that the primary wartime role of frigates and destroyers is to escort High Value Units. Do you think that they are wrong?
What critical tasks will T45 or SSN be diverted from? Type 45 is there to provide Anti Air Warfare capability with SAMPSON/Sea Viper in defence of a High Value Unit or task group. SSNs operating with a task group will usually be doing the same sort of things as one operating without one.
Autorev
Are you saying that possible hostile A2AD capabilities mean that the areas within 300 miles of the coast are no go areas for the World's navies? What about merchant shipping? What about choke points?
With respect to COD, I wonder if there are any open source statistics on what COD delivers to a deployed Nimitz? Personnel, aircraft parts, parts for the carrier, things for other ships in the group, mail?
Just about every documentary I have ever seen about a US Navy carrier seems to include an Underway Replenshipment (RAS in RN terms) with support vessels for things like fuel for the aircraft, weapons, food, and so on. Is a support ship carrying aircraft spares really so outlandish?
Darren P
Using land based tankers (large aircraft with great range endurance) to refuel carrier based ones is pefectly normal. As far back as 2001 the webpages relating to CVF mentioned FTSA as a related project. From 2001 the RAF was providing AAR support for US carrier based aircraft operating over Afghanistan, as it had in 1991 in the Gulf.
I suspect you have not seen many NATO naval tactical publications. They are geared towards task group operations, and they seem to suggest that the primary wartime role of frigates and destroyers is to escort High Value Units. Do you think that they are wrong?
What critical tasks will T45 or SSN be diverted from? Type 45 is there to provide Anti Air Warfare capability with SAMPSON/Sea Viper in defence of a High Value Unit or task group. SSNs operating with a task group will usually be doing the same sort of things as one operating without one.
Autorev
Are you saying that possible hostile A2AD capabilities mean that the areas within 300 miles of the coast are no go areas for the World's navies? What about merchant shipping? What about choke points?
With respect to COD, I wonder if there are any open source statistics on what COD delivers to a deployed Nimitz? Personnel, aircraft parts, parts for the carrier, things for other ships in the group, mail?
Just about every documentary I have ever seen about a US Navy carrier seems to include an Underway Replenshipment (RAS in RN terms) with support vessels for things like fuel for the aircraft, weapons, food, and so on. Is a support ship carrying aircraft spares really so outlandish?
Darren P
Using land based tankers (large aircraft with great range endurance) to refuel carrier based ones is pefectly normal. As far back as 2001 the webpages relating to CVF mentioned FTSA as a related project. From 2001 the RAF was providing AAR support for US carrier based aircraft operating over Afghanistan, as it had in 1991 in the Gulf.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"What critical tasks will T45 or SSN be diverted from? Type 45 is there to provide Anti Air Warfare capability with SAMPSON/Sea Viper in defence of a High Value Unit or task group."
They will be diverted from whatever we've been using them for for the last few years
The Design Spec may well be as you say but day-to-day we haven't got a Task Force nor have they been used to protect "high value units". TBH they ARE the high value units until the QE2 commissions.
Whatever they have been doing will no longer be done - we're not buying more or even extra smaller units to replace them in those roles.
If we have two in service at any one time one will be with the QE2 and the other has to cover the rest of our interests. This is what a lot of us are unhappy about - we're gaining some very high end capability at the cost of an awful lot of our current responsibilities
They will be diverted from whatever we've been using them for for the last few years
The Design Spec may well be as you say but day-to-day we haven't got a Task Force nor have they been used to protect "high value units". TBH they ARE the high value units until the QE2 commissions.
Whatever they have been doing will no longer be done - we're not buying more or even extra smaller units to replace them in those roles.
If we have two in service at any one time one will be with the QE2 and the other has to cover the rest of our interests. This is what a lot of us are unhappy about - we're gaining some very high end capability at the cost of an awful lot of our current responsibilities
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I believe that two of the major roles of the SSN fleet, all 5 or 6 of them in total, were to protect the SSBN deterrent, particularly when leaving port to start patrol and on their return, and to track and gather intelligence on potential enemy SSN/SSBN - and engage in war if necessary.
I suspect they're talking about their ship-launched VLS missiles. Which no-one (anywhere) RASes. They frequently RAS pallets of air-launched missiles with ease. But don't let that get in the way of the whataboutery.
It's a real shame the RN didn't think about what sort of RAS system and future support shipping it would need to support QEC. They'd have run a demonstrator programme and have a support shipping programme and everything. Oh wait......
Meantime, not a single shred of evidence that it's the carriers that are causing all the current issues with T45, SSN etc.
Thread Starter
"What critical tasks will T45 or SSN be diverted from? Type 45 is there to provide Anti Air Warfare capability with SAMPSON/Sea Viper in defence of a High Value Unit or task group."
They will be diverted from whatever we've been using them for for the last few years
The Design Spec may well be as you say but day-to-day we haven't got a Task Force nor have they been used to protect "high value units". TBH they ARE the high value units until the QE2 commissions.
Whatever they have been doing will no longer be done - we're not buying more or even extra smaller units to replace them in those roles.
If we have two in service at any one time one will be with the QE2 and the other has to cover the rest of our interests. This is what a lot of us are unhappy about - we're gaining some very high end capability at the cost of an awful lot of our current responsibilities
They will be diverted from whatever we've been using them for for the last few years
The Design Spec may well be as you say but day-to-day we haven't got a Task Force nor have they been used to protect "high value units". TBH they ARE the high value units until the QE2 commissions.
Whatever they have been doing will no longer be done - we're not buying more or even extra smaller units to replace them in those roles.
If we have two in service at any one time one will be with the QE2 and the other has to cover the rest of our interests. This is what a lot of us are unhappy about - we're gaining some very high end capability at the cost of an awful lot of our current responsibilities
As for SSN numbers everyone should have been able to see the phasing out of the T boats and replacement by A boats, and the issue of numbers. However the A boats are designed to not need being taken out of service for refuelling.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 4th Dec 2017 at 07:16.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and going into the Black Sea to support the Romanians and the Bulgarians and the Gulf as well - can't see that sort of thing happening as much in the future
Everyone could see the problems of numbers - but they never provide the cash - we should have replaced the older subs and destroyers one for one as minimum but we're left with an ever smaller force. We'll finish up with a Carrier Group, maybe the new Dreadnought SSBN's if we're lucky and a few spare frigates (and no bets taken on the likelihood that they will all be built either)
Whatever our views on the QE2's I think we can all agree this is a mess and it may well turn out to be a bloody disaster
Everyone could see the problems of numbers - but they never provide the cash - we should have replaced the older subs and destroyers one for one as minimum but we're left with an ever smaller force. We'll finish up with a Carrier Group, maybe the new Dreadnought SSBN's if we're lucky and a few spare frigates (and no bets taken on the likelihood that they will all be built either)
Whatever our views on the QE2's I think we can all agree this is a mess and it may well turn out to be a bloody disaster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting good now.
Order some more bibs and bobs few x10 million here and there jic.
Then when you go to use them
1. They have fallen out of configuration control
2. They have corroded beyond use
3. They aren't there in the first place
4. They have been subjected to canabilisation (See 2 above having environmental sct's breached).
And all that was "onboard" at Goia de Coll.
Amateurs clutching at straws.
ROFL.
Order some more bibs and bobs few x10 million here and there jic.
Then when you go to use them
1. They have fallen out of configuration control
2. They have corroded beyond use
3. They aren't there in the first place
4. They have been subjected to canabilisation (See 2 above having environmental sct's breached).
And all that was "onboard" at Goia de Coll.
Amateurs clutching at straws.
ROFL.
Far from being an 'Amateur clutching at straws’, I (like most of the Fleet Air Arm) have actually worked with both Royal Navy and other NATO nations Naval forces during long deployments abroad.
Spare engines are carried during such deployments, plus of course many other aircraft spares. That never led to any serious corrosion issues in my experience because appropriate storage conditions and good engineering maintenance practices were correctly maintained, etc.
We also transferred aircraft spares between other foreign NATO ships (who operated the same aircraft type). Carrying out component configuration checks is standard practice in both the military and civilian aviation world.
Obviously it is unlikely that engines would be exchanged between nations unless due to exception circumstances.
So in response to your 4 points:
1. They have fallen out of configuration control.
No not necessarily if appropriate checks are always made to ensure that does not happen. That should be a standard practice in aviation maintenance. Are you saying that the engine supplier and armed forces no longer know how to correctly maintain and use component records? If so that is very worrying.
2. They have corroded beyond use.
Not necessarily, I never came across that situation? Are you therefore saying that the JSF engine has serious corrosion issues and cannot be stored/maintained correctly?
3. They aren't there in the first place.
They could be if deemed necessary and someone was prepared to invest in providing them.
Note: The point I was making was (at least in the short term) it could be cheaper to invest in a few more spare engines rather than buying a complete new squadron of Ospreys (including their spare engines/other spares, GSE, role equipment), setting up a new squadron for them, training their aircrews, etc!
4. They have been subjected to canabilisation (See 2 above having environmental sct's breached).
Again canabilisation is only required if insufficient spares are available (See 2. and 3. above.)
Note: I hope that the JSF engine is not so poor ‘corrosion wise’ that it will not be possible to remove any parts from them without that leading to serious corrosion issues.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spare engines are carried during such deployments, plus of course many other aircraft spares.
Just how many ‘spare engines’ will be carried on board QE?
( the answer is different to Harrier).
Discussion on here seems to be largely based on ‘we didn’t do it in Nelson’s day, so why change?’
The environment has changed. Operating F-35B capability is a tad more complex than phantoms and Harrier.
Do those that consider COD as an expensive irrelevance think QE will be parked 300miles off-shore in a non-permissive environment with a couple of Sqn a of F-35s on board?
I totally agree that the UK cannot afford a V-22 capability exclusively for COD/MITL, but what’s the plan?
NAO report earlier this year recognised this failing, but we are yet to hear how we avoid QE becoming an ‘exquisite irrelevance ‘....
COD is not the only way to resupply engines - as noted above there are other ways. Nor is that the primary use of the USN C2/V22 COD fleet. Linking COD to engine supply is a tad disingenuous.
No-one expects Carrier Strike to leap fully formed from the wrapper. It's going to be an evolutionary process. Much like most large procurements.
No-one expects Carrier Strike to leap fully formed from the wrapper. It's going to be an evolutionary process. Much like most large procurements.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The process to rebuild Carrier Strike requires time and money, agreed.
Time we have - but more money????? God knows where that will come from as we embark on the SSBN and T26 procurment
Time we have - but more money????? God knows where that will come from as we embark on the SSBN and T26 procurment
F35 - funded to 48.
T45 Napier programme - funded.
FSS - funded
Crowsnest - funded
T26 - funded
T31 - funded, although £250M/ship is a brave decision minister, IMO.
MITL - not funded AFAIK.
There will undoubtedly be things identified that need sorting idc. Whether those cost £Bns or whether its a bit less is tbc. I'd expect there to be a bit more needed for overall force structure (strength, personnel and spares) on the fixed and rotary wing element, but we need that anyway.
T45 Napier programme - funded.
FSS - funded
Crowsnest - funded
T26 - funded
T31 - funded, although £250M/ship is a brave decision minister, IMO.
MITL - not funded AFAIK.
There will undoubtedly be things identified that need sorting idc. Whether those cost £Bns or whether its a bit less is tbc. I'd expect there to be a bit more needed for overall force structure (strength, personnel and spares) on the fixed and rotary wing element, but we need that anyway.
) being able to carry a huge quantity of spares owing to her size, a whole new MARS capability is being procured for the RFA including four Tide-class tankers and three Fleet Solid Support ships. 
Then there is the Chinook with its considerable VERTREP underslung load capability.
It's not as though any of this is new for the RN:
Playing along for a moment...
Osprey V-22: Cargo load 20,000 lb internal or up to 15,000 lb external
Chinook CH-47: Cargo load 24,000 lb
Genuine question. Despite its re-supply by air constituting a glaring red herring, how much does a PW F135 engine for an F-35 actually weigh?Chinook CH-47: Cargo load 24,000 lb
I can't find any sign of "COD", "V-22" "spare engines" or "exquisite irrelevance" in it. This key finding on page 8 is the closest it comes and is hardly surprising for a project of this size and complexity:
10 Successful operation depends on a mix of equipment, support and infrastructure, but plans for some of these are not yet mature. Alongside the core equipment programmes (carriers, Lightning II and Crowsnest), the Commands are responsible for ensuring that crucial enabling capabilities are in place. Improvements to Portsmouth Naval Base and RAF Marham to accommodate the carriers and Lightning II jets are progressing well. However, new support arrangements to provide spares and maintain the equipment are less developed. Operating Carrier Strike will rely on logistics, communications and surveillance. While the Department has advised us that it is normal to prioritise investments according to strategic need, the Commands have yet to fund all of these capabilities, which could restrict how Carrier Strike is used (paragraphs 2.31 to 2.37).
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not so much the weight of the F135 as the size which is too big for any of the present COD and has to be split into modules. Even then the power module in its factory engine shipping system is too big and can only be carried as an underslung for a couple of hundred miles.
One of the drivers in buying V-22 for COD is that they have had a purpose designed sled which the module fits onto and, just, fits inside the hold.
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.do...s-golden-mile/
One of the drivers in buying V-22 for COD is that they have had a purpose designed sled which the module fits onto and, just, fits inside the hold.
http://navalaviationnews.navylive.do...s-golden-mile/
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How much does a PW F135 engine for an F-35 actually weigh?"
A very good question - there are quite a few numbers for the A version but I couldn't find anything on the B engine - not even in a fairly recent copy of Janes' AWA
A very good question - there are quite a few numbers for the A version but I couldn't find anything on the B engine - not even in a fairly recent copy of Janes' AWA
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NaB - you are right on the programmes but "funded" doesn't mean we'll get anything the numbers we think.... every programme funded for the last 40 years has finished up with smaller numbers than originally planned due to cost escalation etc etc