Im assuming one will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth seen as they are Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. Can anyone confirm this?

Jacko,

With deep respect, we simply don't need them - what is the the threat that upgraded T1, T2 Typhoons, Tornados, Harriers to replaced by 138 Dave's cannot meet? Where is it? Please justify your statements if you feel the need to make such remarks? The government wants a flexible expeditionary aviation capability. The Cold War is over and we have ordered enough Cold War dinosaurs. I don't like all the decisions associated with that as I have said publicly here many times but facts are facts. We lost the Jags which I didn't like, we lost the Shars which I liked even less, but for once we are looking forwards and not backwards. The top brass have bought in to all this - are they wrong?. Placing a large carrier 150 miles off anyone's coast with 3 sqns of state of the art stealthy jets with precision weapons has been judged to be the way forward. I don't see the flaw in this thinking.

HMS Denis Healey ....

Sorry, couldn't resist.:p

I can think of quite a lot, unless you've got an equally stealthy carrier... e.g.

YAKHONT (SS-N-26) ASM

DID: BAE & VT Group Create UK Surface Ship JV

BAE Systems plc has entered into a legally binding Framework Agreement with VT Group plc ('VT') to establish a joint venture (JV) which will be the UK's premier provider of surface warships and through-life support. This is part of the sector rationalization pushed by the UK ministry of Defence as part of its Defence Industrial Strategy, and was a precondition for its CVF carrier program. On July 25/07, BAE Systems, VT and the MoD signed a Heads of Terms which set out the intended role of this JV in the CVF program.

BAE Systems, VT and the Ministry of Defence (MoD) also signed a non binding Heads of Terms on July 25/07 for a Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) for the surface warship sector. The ToBA will set out a 15-year partnering arrangement which will offer a defined forward workload of design, build and through-life support work. The JV will be the UK Government's strategic partner for the design, build and support of future warships, and will also pursue export opportunities. It targets total net savings to the government in excess of £700 million (about $1.44 billion) to be shared 70/30 between the MoD and the JV. These net savings, and the extent to which the JV will benefit, remain to be finalized over the coming months.

It is intended that the JV will comprise the following assets…

- BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions (incl. surface warship building and surface warship through-life support, facilities and capabilities at Glasgow, Filton near Bristol, and Portsmouth)

- VT's surface warship building and through-life support operations at Protsmouth

- Each of BAE Systems' and VT's 50% shareholdings in their existing surface warship through-life support joint venture, Fleet Support Limited ('FSL').

As part of this deal, VT will also acquire BAE Systems' 50% holding in Flagship Training Ltd.

At their respective financial year-ends (BAE Dec 31/06, VT March 31/07), the businesses to be contributed to the joint venture generated sales of £755M (BAE £501M, VT £254M), operating profit of £45M (BAE £14M, VT £31M excluding exceptional and management charge), and had gross assets of £352M (BAE £141M, VT £211M). BAE Systems and VT will split ownership of the joint venture 55%/45%, but they will have equal Board representation and voting rights. The BAE release and VT Group release set out some of the more technical financial elements.

I'd say VSTOL 'B' every time, as it gives so much more flexibility for forward bases ashore, landing on other ships etc -

some people seem seduced by payload & range figures while forgetting the above.


Yes but....with cats and traps you can operate a variety of other aircraft. F18s and all those that the French will have (Rafale, E2 etc). If you go VSTOL, you can only operate VSTOL...that's it.

Dave B v Dave C
 

Dumb Question Time:

What difference does the ski-jump actually make to the payload/range performance of Dave B? I.e., is it possible (if stupid and shortsighted) to build CVF with cats and traps for E-2D MASC and still fly Dave B off the same deck? I presume not (running over cats on takeoff doesn't seem like a very good idea, for example), but what do the experts think?

Alternatively, tell Swiss Des to get cats, traps, and Dave C!

S41

With deep respect, we simply don't need them - what is the the threat that upgraded T1, T2 Typhoons, Tornados, Harriers to replaced by 138 Dave's cannot meet? Where is it? Please justify your statements if you feel the need to make such remarks?

1) Land based air power gets their quicker, cheaper, and sustains a higher sortie rate for longer. Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based could not have got their first (please don't irritate me by quoting Sierra Leone). Land based air power is more useful, more often, and is cheaper and more effective.

2) It's 82 Dave-Bs, and falling.

3) Tranche 3 gives sufficient Typhoons to equip seven squadrons, an OEU and an OCU, through to the planned OSD. That doesn't seem that much, to me, to replace three Jag OS squadrons and an F3 force that once numbered seven frontline squadrons.

4) Where's the real world threat that requires a full stealth, kick-down the door F-35? We are already in operations where a Typhoon's ability to carry up to six EPW etc. etc. would be a mite handy.

The government wants a flexible expeditionary aviation capability. The Cold War is over and we have ordered enough Cold War dinosaurs. I don't like all the decisions associated with that as I have said publicly here many times but facts are facts. We lost the Jags which I didn't like, we lost the Shars which I liked even less, but for once we are looking forwards and not backwards. The top brass have bought in to all this - are they wrong?.

5) Yes, they're wrong. A carrier is big and vulnerable, and is hugely expensive and hugely expensive to operate and protect, and it takes days to get where land based air power can get in hours. You could scarcely find a bigger 'Cold War dinosaur' than something that makes air power quite so expensive to deliver.

Placing a large carrier 150 miles off anyone's coast with 3 sqns of state of the art stealthy jets with precision weapons has been judged to be the way forward. I don't see the flaw in this thinking.

6) Others here have pointed out a flaw or two.... But for the record, the flaws are slow speed of response, massive 'infrastructure' requirements (guard SSN, AD destroyers, oilers, RFAs, etc), inability to sustain high sortie rate, vulnerability, cost, and impact on the remainder of the defence budget.

On NUMEROUS occasions during the 90s, the Jags found themselves flying operational sorties over the Balkans (for example) less than 36 hours after getting the word to go. The Typhoon is only marginally less 'deployable'.

A planned exercise deployment to the US found itself transformed from peacetime jets to warfighters in two hours (got the survival vests, chaff, etc. from stores, bought GPS from Roys of Wroxham) and could have been flying op sorties over Sierra Leone from Dakar well within two days. The carrier took nine days to get there, and was then not much more than a self licking lollipop.

In an ideal world, with a Cold War type defence budget, I'd be all for having a two- or three-ship force of carriers. But when we can't afford a proper number of land-based fast jet squadrons (the Granby era total of 30 would strike me as perfect, 24 as adequate) then it's a shocking distortion of priorities.

The previous Queen Elizabeth might have been sunk in 1941 but was operating in the Pacific in 1944 so I dont think that counts.

Strangely only one navy ship seems to have been named Queen Elizabeth although there have been a few Elizabeths.

There have been at least 4 previous Prince of Wales.

Maybe we should think of the Prince of Wales in terms of honouring the lost crew of the previous ship rather than more modern connections.

My choice would have been Princess Royale

Jacko

"Since 1982 there has not been a single occasion when land based could not have got their first "

yes that is quite a long time.

However, remind me when was the last time a ground based state of the art fighter like Typhoon was useful?

GW2?....um....no
GW1?....un.....no
Falklands? ...um...no
Suez?
Korea?

Jacko,

You stress the point (wrongly) that carrier groups are more vulnerable than land bases which I would like to correct. Remember GW1 and GW2? Lots of big desert airstrips which can't move with lots of primitive ballistic missiles aimed at them which could easily be carrying chemical warheads. That lesson has been learned. A carrier group is immune to the Scud threat as the Americans are very aware.

Lets look at the capabilities of a UK CVBG. One carrier, 36 swing role stealth jets. Two or more T45 escorts with the PAAMS system, 4 or more T23s, One or more Astute class SSN with Tomahawk. This capability can move 500 miles in a days.

This layered defence is tried and trusted by thre US andgives the ability to defend against airborne threats both aircraft and missile and still strike hard against land targets.

So, you don't think ground based fighters were useful and necessary in GW I, GW II, Northern Watch, Southern Watch, Serbia etc?

They fact that they were mainly provided by the USA doesn't obviate they were both necessary and effective. The only assumption from your comment is that if they provide them, there will be no need in future for RAF to possess them. But the same point can be made just as validly concerning aircraft carriers and naval aviation......

Typhoon will be more than a fighter though. It has the capability to make a great OS platform. Once it gets the clearance to carry and drop precision and dumb bombs then we will be looking at a fantastic aircraft with bags of capability and potential. Those who write it off as a Cold War dinosaur are, at best, shortsighted.

Back to the main topic though: I'm glad we've got the carriers, and they will be a great asset for the RN. However, when the RN is struggling to man a "wing" of 9 pilots at the moment, I am a little concerned about their ability to man however many JSFs of whatever breed we buy. Where are all these pilots going to come from? :confused: Anyone who's involved in the training pipeline now will tell you that it's going to be a massive problem. I hope we don't end up looking stupid with two big boats and nothing to fly off them.

There's a problem in answering that, Tourist.

What do you mean by 'state of the art'?

What do you mean by 'fighter' - pure air-air aircraft or multi-role platform?

Assuming that you mean an aircraft at the top of its game in terms of kit and capability onboard, even if the airframe design concept is some years old for 'state of the art' and the air-to-air role only for 'fighter' then the answer is F-15C with NCTR, GW1; then F-15C with AMRAAM, Kosovo, 1999.

And perhaps more controversially - F-15C and Tornado F3, Op TELIC where the Iraqis looked at the opposition and chose not to fly (at least according to the two Iraqi AF officers I've spoken to).

If you expand 'fighter' to cover platforms based on 'pure' fighters or which are designed as multi-role types, then F-15E, F-16, Mirage 2000D and now Rafale are all in use and have been handy in Iraq (obviously not the French types) and in Afghanistan. If that's allowed, then the answer is 'yesterday'

QE and POW? What a lack of imagination when there's such a lot of traditional RN names to choose from.

In an era where the appearance of aggression is frowned upon, why not reintroduce the Flower Class as CVFs.
How about HMS Primrose and HMS Buttercup?

These days their Lordships would probably consider HMS Snapdragon a bit too punchy and HMS Bluebell a bit too Light Blue.
HMS Snowdrop and HMS Delphinium, anyone?

Or maybe to counteract those ridiculous stories of poor morale it's time to resurrect the old Algerine Class.
HMS Ready and HMS Cheerful would be "on message"...
....although with a crew of 1500, post-Iraq, HMS Recruit could be a problem...

Time to revert to the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force?

That's a good plan, Gainesy, but you wouldn't want the ships having a different chain of command to the aircraft that are their raison d'etre.

The answer is to do as you suggest, but also to chop the carriers over to a reformed RAF Marine Branch, along with the AD destroyers, and any boat that carries a helicopter.

Give the deterrent role to the army (whose raison d'etre is scaring people) - with the submarines going to the tank regiments - who are used to sitting in tin cans dreaming of Cold War days when they were relevant.

Then Voila, you can disband the Navy, with commensurate savings in manpower and costs.

How on earth did you get hold of that advance copy of the 2010 SDR, JN?

Ah yes the good old Crabs running the RN's Airwing for them - Brilliant! Like in the past the FAA would start with 90% CRAB Air and (Surface?) Crew and Dark blue Observers and within 3 years it'll be 85% Dark blue because CAS has realized he can't Recruit nor retain people. Just imagine it, forget about the Carriers people; your being deployed onto a Frigate! 8 months at sea anyone? Oh and the navy want an Aircraft that can do Air to Air forget it! They'll get what there given. (oh! that's already happened)
F*ck i've just bitten :suspect:

Future Carrier
 

Long gestation periods are not unusual.

HMS Ark Royal IV and her sister HMS Eagle had a slow build time. Arguably the wrong one was scrapped first. CV01 was eventually killed off by the Wilson administration after a very slow burn on design and budgeting. Although the intended escort HMS Bristol was built. The Invincibles sneaked through because Admiral Tony Griffin was creative in describing them and Hermes was kept on under similar creative description of its military role. Without that creativity the RN would have been unable to send a task force to the Falklands in 1982.

Joint aircraft programmes are notoriously difficult. Merlin was one of many to suffer from arguments about work sharing between the countries involved and one key computer-based system cost six times as much as it should have and was less robust and effective because two components had to be sourced from a partner country's electronic industry when better, cheaper, proven items were available from the US.

The JSF might have been simpler and better if only one country was developing for their specific single force operation and had decided whether to go for VTOL, VSTOL, or conventional fixed wing fast jet configuration. As it is, the basic design is expected to be available in a wide range of configurations and prices which may prove to mean that none of the variants achieve full potential for some dubious benefits in spares stocking.

http://ftnews.firetrench.com and http://aerospace.firetrench.com carry copies of statements by Vosper Thornycroft this week and news from Lockheed Martin and others over recent years on the carriers and the F35.

One question being raised is whether the new RN carriers will fill a necessary role when completed. All military planning suffers from procurement times that result in equipment being delivered after the threat, it was designed to counter, has ceased to exist. Example is the Typhoon II Eurofighter that was designed to meet a Soviet threat in Europe and has arrived when Britain is facing operations in the Middle East against very different threats and in a totally different electronic warfare environment that might be better addressed by an A 10 type anti-armour and COIN platform and may be most effectively addressed by armed UAV platforms. OTOH the threats could change yet again while the Typhoon II is still in its youth, and creative tactical employment can mean that it will provide a first rate solution to a threat that was not envisaged during its design.

Most forces end up fighting battles that were never planned for.

The hidden implications of the new carriers is how they will change RN procurements. Example is that they will need more surface vessels to provide anti-submarine and anti-air protection. Some believe that four carriers of 40,000 tons would have been better than two of 65,000 tons because they are smaller targets and the greater numbers ensure at least one will be fully operational at any one time.