But the USN normally have one along.......

it may not be in close formation so it doesn't have to cruise at the same speed - it can sprint and wait.........

You'd feel a bit of t** if some Kilo or a modern german built boat happened to be in the neighbourhood

Do they? I admit I'm a bit out of date with submarine tactics, but I was under the impression that the US SSNs always operated independantly, aside fro the odd duty of "sanitising" the area outside the port prior to sortie-ing SSBNs of major battlegroups. An SSN isn't much use if it can't stay covert, and any attempt to communicate with the battlegroup would remove the covertness.

Destroyers sprint & drift when conducting ASW, but then they're not covert in the first place. What's the point in an SSN which broadcasts its presence (and thus the battlegroup's general course and speed) every time it sprints?

I know Clancy proposed convoys of SSNs using sprint & drift so that one could be listening while the others proceeded, but I've never heard of the USN or RN using co-operative groups of SSNs like this, let alone using that as a tactic.

PDR

You are correct. Makes you wonder why the carriers don't have some kind of organic ASW capability embarked...

Oh, wait.

PDR1,

An USN Carrier Strike Group (CSG) typically comprises - depending on the threat level:

The US Navy Aircraft Carriers

- 1 x CVN.

- 1 x Ticonderoga Class cruiser.

- 2 x Arleigh-Burke Class destroyers.

- 1 x Los Angeles Class attack submarine.

- 1 x combined ammunition, oiler, supply ship.

During Fleet Week San Diego, I have had the opportunity to tour the USS Arleigh-Burke a couple of times and - considering the lead ship was commissioned in July 1991 - it is still a very impressive piece of kit packing a punch that makes a Type 45 look distinctly puny. The incremental improvements made to the ships in the class continue to the day with up to 42 new Flight III ships in the class being planned - the first 3 have already been launched.

Arleigh-Burke Armament - latest configuration - cost $1.843B

96-cell Vertical Launch System loaded as required with these options:
Tomahawk surface attack cruise missile
RIM-66 Standard medium range SAM with ASuW option
RIM-161 Standard Ballistic Missile Defense missile (AEGIS)
RIM-162 ESSM SAM
RUM-39 Vertical launch ASROC
RIM-174A ERAM (130>250 nm range)

2 x Mk 141 quad Harpoon launcher

1 x 5" Mk 45 gun
Phalanx CIWS
2 x 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon

2 x Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleig...lass_destroyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type 45 Armament - cost $1.5B (at 1.5 USD/GBP)

1 x 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS with these options:

Aster 15 missiles (1.7>30 km range)
Aster 30 missiles (3>120 km range)

2 x quad Harpoon launchers

1 x 4.5" Mk 8 gun
2 x Phalanx CIWS
2 x Oerlikon 30mm
2 x Miniguns
6 x GPMGs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer

Personally, I just don't see how the UK is ever going to be able to provide the level of protection to a QE Class carrier that it's investment and embarked assets merit in a multi-threat environment (aircraft, TBM, multiple surface combatants, SSN/SSK).

On the other hand, if Raytheon are to be believed, you're relatively safe if a late model Arleigh Burke is around (tongue in cheek banter).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1-_4tfWR4c

Tourist has already alluded to the ASW helicopter screening that has served well in the past and (should) serve well in the future.

No they haven't. In fact, not even contracted for yet IIRC. The ones you're thinking of are Flt IIA+ (!) and the very fact they're having to do this indicates a major problem in their ship design capabilities. Some of the things they're having to do to make the planned Flt III ships pass stability certs without a complete redesign of the hull are "interesting" to say the least.....

You do realise that operational capability is not actually the same as Top Trumps, don't you?:rolleyes:

trouble is the lack of surface to surface missiles on the T45 - I guess the initial cost was too high and so we're retrofitting old systems from the T22's - but only 8 launchers on 4 boats

and each CVN has 4 surface ships and an SSN as escort - I doubt we'd be able to keep both carriers at sea together if that became an RN standard

T45 is an Air (and maybe soon space?) defender.

Adding endless all round capabilities doesn't work any better at sea than it does in the air. You end up with a master of none.

so we need three types of surface ship?

Anti-Air, Anti-surface and Anti-sub?????

plus of course a Carrier..................

You mean a bit like in the Air where you have bombers, fighters, transports and helicopters?

There have been multi-role aircraft, and there have been multi role ships, but often they are not great at anything...

I think if the initial order plan for type 45 had been stuck to, Then having your AA assets on two ships rather than one would have been a good idea. Alas......

We now need warm water and cold water versions...................

Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water | IHS Jane's 360

Inquiry reveals UK's Type 45 destroyers are even less reliable in warm water

Jeremy Binnie, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
09 June 2016

Senior defence industry officials revealed during testimony to a parliamentary inquiry on 7 June that the problems with the integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system on the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers are more acute in warm environments such as the Gulf.

Rolls-Royce's Tomas Leahy claimed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) failed to specify that the Type 45s would have to operate in warm environments. "There was a specification for Type 45, the engine met that specification," he told the inquiry. "Are the conditions in the Gulf in line with that specification? No they are not, so the equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions than initially required by that specification."

"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf," BAE Sysyems Maritime Managing Director John Hudson said. "It was not designed explicitly or uniquely for operations in the Gulf."
He said that BAE had nevertheless attempted to design the ship so it would experience a "graceful degradation" of its performance at high temperatures, but then added that the exact opposite was happening.

"What we have found in the Gulf is that it takes the gas turbine generator bit into an area which is sub-optimal for the generator, and also we found that with the drive units that the cooling system created condensation within the drive units which caused faults and that caused electrical failures as well," he said. These electrical failures leave the Type 45s unable to operate their propulsion, sensor, or weapons systems.

Leahy suggested the problems would be experienced by all gas turbines, not just the Rolls-Royce WR-21 engines fitted to the Type 45. "It's not a fault of the WR-21. Even if it was a simple-cycle gas turbine it will still suffer the same fate in those circumstances, it's a law of physics."

If a carrier is cruising along with side lift down a Somali in a motorboat with a missile can fire it into the open area. The consequent explosion amongst aircraft, fuel etc can sink the carrier.

Eh? What are you talking about?

Nurse!
Meds!.

...............

well - it's true up to a point but as they say................ one would hope not ......

"The operating profile considered at the time [the Type 45 was specified] was that there would not be repeated and continuous operations in the Gulf,""

when was this? presumably it was a carry over from thr NFR-90 & Horizon projects - I'd suspect the former as after 1990 it should must have been bloody obvious we'd be operating in the Gulf........................ idiotic really...................

So will our Carriers be unable to operate properly in warm water areas too?

Perhaps we should have built nuclear powered ships instead! :ugh:

bit like the dreadful Challenger tank issiue in Gulf War I..................

Please excuse my ignorance, but what type of arrestor gear is available on our new carrier in the event of an F-35B's lift fan failure and the aircraft being forced to land conventionally?

If there's no diversion airfield available I should imagine it's a combination of a parachute stored in the pilot's seat, and a helicopter on board the carrier. Much like the Harrier...

Edit: I should imagine the economics are fairly straightforward. Multiply the number of aircraft you expect to lose from lift fan failure by the cost of each aircraft. If that number is less than the combined cost of installing and operating dedicated arrestor gear on the carriers, and of adding suitable hardware to each airframe, then it's not worth doing...

As Pasta says, the QECs have no provision for arrested landings as currently configured. The same was true of the three CVS (Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal) and their Harriers. So they take the risk that when operating Blue Water an inability to hover means that the driver must bang out next to the carrier.

It's a small risk that is deemed acceptable.

PDR

The same question can be asked about SRVLs that go wrong, for whatever reason. Remembering that one reason for SRVLs is to increase the bring back weight, so an F35B with, one day, a Storm Shadow is coming back for whatever reason, and has a problem, an arrestor / crash net or two would seem to be a good idea.

The QECs replacement will be in service by then. I'm sure they'll have it put in the design spec!;)

I don't think you realise how fast a conventional landing might be.....

You would drop the storm shadow rather than take a net:ugh:

My point Tourist was that an SRVL that had a problem would be very difficult to recover from if there was a failure close to or on the deck.

Yes landings on a carrier are fast, not sure what happens now if there is a problem with a hook, eject or take a barrier? Implicitly if an F35C can take a barrier, then an F35B should be able to do so as well. Obviously taking a barrier is not good for an airframe, whilst ditching one is a trice worse.

Storm Shadow is a bit of a moot point as there is neither a plan to, nor the finace to pay for, the integration of that weapon of F35 :ooh:

As the late Bill Bedford once said:

"When it comes to maritime aviation it is surely preferable to stop, and then try to land than it is to land, and then try to stop..."

PDR

See the Type 26's are drifitng right................

No Type 26 frigate deal unless it is 'value for money' - BBC News

At the same time, support budgets for existing ships (ie Type 23/Type 45) and their systems may be seen as low hanging fruit for cuts.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

http://www.arrse.co.uk/community/att...08-jpg.250206/

Looking back at this thread - there appears to be a lot of people who think a carrier is simply a floating airfield. Well here is a picture* of RAF Marham, with an outline of HMS Queen Elizabeth for comparison.

All the things you normally get an an airfield are compressed into a small area, which is subject to the motions of the sea. Additionally the deck is liable to move as the ship yaws, pitches, and rolls. Everything has to be done in the finite space aboard the carrier, which of course makes everything more difficult and means personnel need unique skills.

* Found on another site.

Just thought I'd share this little piccy with you all: The first British F-35B to reach the UK (along with two USMC Lightning IIs) has just conducted a flypast over HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales (not visible from this angle) at Rosyth. And the 'Daily Fail' is still peddling the line that our new carriers will have no aircraft. What's this, Scotch Mist?

That's some cocktail party they're planning judging by the size of the marquee.

This post from the ARRSE CVF and Carrier Strike thread talks about the ongoing work to prepare these two great ships.

Great progress has been made with the ships, great progress has been made with the F-35B (see here and here on the RN website), but both need people to make them work. I remember hearing the FAA Command Warrant Officer talking about the pre SDSR plan to embark more jets aboard the CVS for longer periods to relearn the skills needed both by the air squadron and the whole ship's company. I remember being told similar things by the Cdr (Air) and others aboard Illustrious in late 2007. If only sombody had listened to them and the ex CVS Captain First Sea Lord in 2010. :{:ugh::{

As with most things, people are the key - and possibly the most difficult to prepare. The noise and jet blast from the F-35B are going to make Sea Harrier/Harrier seem tame.

WEB - as a number of us have pointed out they're going to have to scrape the barrel to crew just one of these ships on a regular basis

You have - but you are completely wrong. The ship's company of HMS Queen Elizabeth is mostly in place already. Also I am not sure what you mean by scraping the barrel. You are aware that it is normal for sailors to leave a ship and join another, or to finish their training and to join a ship. Are you suggesting that those sent to QE/POW are less capable than those posted elsewhere?

My comments related solely to the unique issues associated with operating fixed wing aircraft from a ship.

Well...apart from things like jet blast (after all the F-35B will produce a lot more that Harrier, and simulations showed Jet Blast Deflectors would not do much to help), extremely hot jet efflux, extra sensitivity to FOD, wind over deck..... Which someone is looking into - see this post from June 2013 on another thread.

The bigger issue is getting everyone else to be ready for a large, busy flight deck. - WhiteOvies

Yes I am aware of exchanges, and I realise things happen that are not in the public eye, but still.....

Indeed they change ship but you're looking at a single unit in service so they will all be there semi-permanently - and many of the specialisations will be restricted to the CVA

We can't even man all the ships we have right now..............

HH,

Whilst I agree that the RN currently struggles to man their ships at all times, the assertion that a person or trade will be “Big Ships” only is not my experience of how the Navy works.
In my many years of service I served on frigates (x2 ), carriers (Invince class several times), RFAs (Engadine, Argus, Fort boats various) and shore based at home and abroad..
The ability to train for a specific draft or billet is part of the manning process. An example being the 3 months worth of SAMCOs and courses I completed prior to joining RFANSU (as it was called) and the Fort boats as the PO in charge of the workshops.
“Harmony” requirements also come into play as with any Naval draft these days so it will be made to work, although I look forward to hearing how the RAF will cope with life on board. I suppose the younger generation won’t know any different so they will fit right in?
Cheers now

Excuse my ignorance, but why are blast deflectors not much use? Is it specific to the F35? I seem to remember seeing blast deflectors on the big American carriers.