"The CSBA, indubitably the smartest of the Washington defense think tanks, ran an exercise in the summer where seven teams pulled from industry and government - working independently and off-the-record - aimed at likely budget levels using a common set of tools."

Today's Times had an article by someone from the States saying the US Defence Budget needs at least a 2% cut, taxes need to go up by 2-3% and entitlements cut by the same sort of number

did he not say a cut of 2% GDP?...i.e. a 50% cut, to make their finances sustainable in his view, bit extreme but he is a lefty! Either way, I think the general gist is there is a lot of money needs saving...

One hopes BAe gets wind of the new Russian technology or it might be back to the drawing board

http://level3.ebaumsworld.com/mediaF...3/82917600.mp4

:O

Last time I looked, we don't use 45s for any of that, directly. Falklands EEZ - HMS Clyde with support from HMS Protector. A 23 or a 45 does APT(S) from time to time - not least to exercise long-range independent deployments. Gib - two small (16m) patrol craft which is actually all we need unless we want to start shooting. Do we actually want to start shooting with our NATO & EU partner?

Any ships on ATALANTA are also meant to be able to go upthreat in the Gulf if required, which some sort of lightly armed corvette most certainly could not.

That's the problem with this PR job. It's nothing to do with better assets for "low-level tasks" and everything to do with CGS trying to chisel money from the T26 budget to fund land systems, rather than a de facto increase in hulls. More hulls = more manpower which the RN most certainly won't get and guess what - it's the lower-level tasks that actually require the majority of manpower. The FP watch bill can be significant, which means larger crews - (I'd be surprised if a "corvette" to do these sorts of tasks would require less than 75 bods, plus extras like LEDETS, boarding parties etc). That is going to lead to a larger and more expensive ship than people are envisaging.

All of that means that you'd actually end up with broadly the same number of hulls (one, possibly two extra if you're lucky), but fewer of which will be deployable in a real threat environment. And to address S41's point re task groups and "other" RN tasks - it's fair to say that (as with the Army and the RAF) if a full RN TG is required, other tasks will be gapped for the duration.

What that means is that you actually reduce your overall capability to fight wars, which is not the stated intent.

Anyway - I'm sure this belongs elsewhere than the carrier thread.......

Good morning Mr Boffin (said with much respect)

Has this latest carrier always been designed without any type of angled flight deck and when we read of these astronomical conversion costs for the EMALS systems will that include converting both ships to have an angled deck?

Whilst ship numbers mightg not have a place on this carrier thread it does ask the question though about manpower or the lack thereof.

More ships might equate to more sailors and if we are suggesting both carriers can be deployed at the same time, then do we have the man power? I have read reports which talk about manning the second carrier with NATO forces but I would believe that when and if it happened!!

The Royal Navy squadron currently based at Gibraltar appears to be less than effective when dealing with this latest Spanish 'Armada' and I do agree with your point about taking on our NATO neighbour but the bottom line is we either enforce these limits or we don't but that is not an issue for this thread..

Angled flight deck ;)

What is this latest carrier without an angled deck?

boffin

the Navy does not just exist"to fight wars"

it spends 99% of it's time not doing so and right now it is badly out of balance

A few patrol vessels would make a hell of a difference where it's needed - i doubt any number of 45's will help in a serious set-to with say China

Angled deck or not....?

I'm just a crab onlooker in the carrier/Dave ? saga (although I am pro carrier), however.

This link seems to imply that when it was intended as a conventional carrier it had an angled deck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(R08)



But once we went STOVL it would appear the angled deck disappeared, see about 4 photos down (note the date):

HMS Queen Elizabeth: Stern of Royal Navy's new £3bn aircraft carrier leaves Portsmouth | Mail Online


But then again, both of these are from open sources which have a history of getting things wrong!

HH - absolutely agree that the RN exists to do more than fight wars and the 99% number. I remember those elements well from the original FSC requirement and ST(S) exercise in 1998.

However, ultimately the RN is required to fight wars and in a time of limited resource, diluting warfighting capability on the basis of a somewhat specious argument about "fighting pirates with T45s" does not make much sense.

Were the argument to add hulls on top of the 19 DD/FF then that might be a different story - depending on whether one believes that 19 is sufficient to meet national tasking. However, I don't think anyone believes that that is the case being made.

One might apply a similar argument to the cost-effectiveness of using two-seat FGA designed and outfitted to penetrate IADS to deliver shows of force and PGM on Herrick. I don't see a huge clamour to acquire something like the A10, or the jet that shall not be named, or modern versons of the A37, Strikemaster or even A1 to service the Herrick requirement, do you? Certainly not at the expense of existing FJ force structure.

Aircraft Carrier Alliance site images 20011/2012 shows no angled deck.

There 2011

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...eclass-new.jpg

Gone 2012

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...llery-2012.jpg

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...llery-2011.jpg

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...er-preview.jpg

ORAC, the disappearance of that angled flight deck doesn't happen to coincide with the 'Back to 'B'' decision, does it? (Just looking at the dates...)

The only difference between the STOVL and CTOL decks is a small add-on between fr 55 and 120 to port, extending about 5m out, which allows for runout with the barrier deployed (the bit the french forgot on CdG).

It's one deck deep and essentially void space - about 300 te of steel. The rest (other than the arrester gear itself) is essentially lighting and paint.

From the photograph I attached it does look like the deck has the width you are describing but it is certainly not an angled flight deck.

My question still remains regarding when the costing was published, did it include the conversion and where was the second catapult going to be located?

If you paint an angle on the STOVL deck, add the small extension between fr 55 and 120 - hey presto, angled deck - at 8 degrees to be precise.

300 te steelwork would set you back about £5M - it's in the noise, but would have been included in the conversion cost. The second cat would have been within the existing STOVL deck structure, angled slightly outboard.

I did look at what you have suggested but was unsure about that second catapult location :ok::ok:

The ship looks all but wide enough to have two parallel areas of operation :O

glojo... here are the two layouts.

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...92756236_n.jpg

Thank you very much for that and it does highlkight my point about almost having the room for two aircraft dual carriageway :):uhoh:

I have never seen that image of the angle.. Thanks

Apologies for the repeat post but it does highlight what we are discussing.

http://i1258.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1e70c151.jpg

It's almost as if the people who did the flightdeck and aviation facilities design knew what they were doing.....

I DEFINITELY would NOT go that far :ok:

It's going to be hoofing for FD circuits.