Royal Navy Aircraft Carriers

Jonesy

I have to agree with what you are saying about BAE systems, it seems to have concentrated on buying itself up the defence league table, rather than delivering on targets.

As you know a bit about shipbuilding, do you have any info on the Type 43 and 44 destroyer designs?

I cant argue with the logic from the Industrial standpoint. I’ve worked with BAE lads and I’ve seen the thinly-veiled doom and gloom written on their shipbuilding intranet site. A steady order book would be something their senior people would sell dearly loved relatives for!.

That said though there is a strong mentality in BAE that the government ‘owes them a living’ and should keep throwing work to them irrespective of some hideously poor performances in the past. I am NOT happy with the government being forced, by BAE’s near-monopoly on naval shipbuilding, into pouring massive amounts of funding into projects that BAE say they can bring in for a decent price – only to go miles over budget and then threaten other essential projects through the funds drain. I find BAE’s threatening of massive job cuts every time the government tries to seek redress for these shabby performances infuriating as well.

The real issue that makes my blood pressure bounce off the scale though is the lack of effort BAE, especially when compared to someone like Vospers, put into winning export contracts when they have some truly world-beating products that could sell well on their quality alone. My brother is a QI at Cammel Lairds yard in Birkenhead and he’s supervised work on vessels of many different nations. He has distinct things to say about what he’s seen of ships from certain parts of the world when compared to those of UK construction. I am careening well off topic here though!.

Ironically with Type45, Astute SSN’s, CVF, FSC and MUFC all stacking up in the next decade-and-a-bit lack of yard work shouldnt be the real problem. True theres a bit of a gap between T45 and CVF work but its hardly unbridgable if they do a bit of work and pick up some, modest, export orders. Most other companies have to go out and win orders to survive after all. 😡

As you might have guessed shipbuilding has been in my family for quite a few generations and this is a bit of a raw issue for me!!. Rant over I promise!.

Bigger may be better, but I think smaller is more practical.

Smaller doesnt work for power projection though and that is the bottom line for the UK Future Carrier capability. We need sustainable high sortie rates and for that bigger (circa 60k ton) is the only way to go.

Jonesy

I’m in total agreement with what your saying about HM Treasury and UK defence policy in general.
UK governments seem to think they can starve the defence industry of orders, bringing hardship to workers, and factories and shipyards to the brink of closure, then expect a good deal when they do get around to buying something.

When governments become reliable customers they will have every right to demand the best possible service.

This is why I think it would be better to build more smaller carriers rather than 2 big carriers.

Building 2 big carriers would provide alot of work for a decade or so, then the work dries up and its another 20 years before new carriers are considered.

Building 4+ smaller carriers could keep a shipyard in business all the way up to the need to replace the first of class, this way more savings and improvements can be made during construction than a 2 ship class.

Bigger may be better, but I think smaller is more practical.

Main problem with that idea Steve is that with HM Treasury being plainly anti-Defence and with the UK electorate, by-and-large, being completely ignorant of the dire financial realities HM forces have to endure that we’d get the first two carriers and the promise of the two ‘proper’ CVA’s would get quietly forgotten with vague mumblings about how “we’re only a small island of the coast of Europe blah, blah……..”.

Its the OPV-1 issue all over again. A couple of decades ago we looked at the kind of fregate de surveillance platform the Marine Nationale built with their Floreal class boats. The vessel was to be a combat capable OPV design that would carry a medium gun, a fitted-for-but-not-with SSM capabilty, a couple of STWS mounts and provision for a lightweight Sea Wolf system. It would have a modest sensor fit, ability to operate a chopper and a CODAD propulsion fit optimised for endurance and efficiency. The thinking behind this was for a vessel that could perform Guardship and second-line missions very much cheaper and more efficiently than the Type 42’s and 22’s that were being built at the time. Front-line ships that were needed for Atlantic ops and for high-threat deployments like Armilla.

The theory was sound and, for a modest investment, would have seen the front-line escort fleet spared from the ‘mickey mouse’ deployments that the RN stretched to cover with vessels totally inappropriate for the tasking.

The reason this plan was abruptly halted?. The Treasury declared that this was a wonderful idea because it would mean that fewer of the costly front-line frigates and destroyers would be required!!!!!!!.

HM Treasury has no concept of or interest in military capability. If we buy two CVS/LPH’s then they would be all we get and they would be grossly insufficient to the task of supporting the UK’s expeditionary warfare defence policy.

Scooter

There is no guarantee of this happening, look at Iraq, and co-operation with other allies should not be taken for granted in any defence matter.

I agree to a point. In the past the UK has fought conflicts without direct allied support (i.e. Argentina) and with (i.e. Iraq). That said, the latter is more likely. 😎 I am sure that the CVF Design takes that into account and why the Royal Navy considers the larger CVF the more perferable option. 🙂

OK, lets compromise.

Build two 20-30,000 ton carriers which operate 20-30 STOVL aircraft each. These will replace 2 Invincibles and leave 1 Invincible and HMS Ocean to do the LPH job. UK shipyards are capable of this now.

Then, on completion of this class, the necessary skills and shipyard improvements can be put into place to build two 50-60,000 ton carriers at a affordable price. Then Ocean and the Invincible can be paid off and the 2 smaller carriers can take over the LPH role.

We will then have 4 carriers and a lot more capability. The 2 big carriers can concentrate on air strikes and the 2 small carriers can provide air defence and ASW.

I also think that airships should provide AEW for the fleet and that RAF tankers and AWACS can support air strikes like they did over Afghanistan and Iraq.

The CVF’s of the Royal Navy will work closely with her Allies in any major conflict. Either with the CVN’s of the USN and/or other NATO member countries. (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, etc) 🙂

Scooter

There is no guarantee of this happening, look at Iraq, and co-operation with other allies should not be taken for granted in any defence matter.

The CVF’s of the Royal Navy will work closely with her Allies in any major conflict. Either with the CVN’s of the USN and/or other NATO member countries. (i.e. France, Italy, Spain, etc) 🙂

Blackcat/SteveO

The theory of wolfpacking small carrier groups isnt a new one I’m afraid!. It was the theory that the RN worked on pretty much consistently from the late 40’s to the early 60’s!. As a theory it sounds quite good as it allows for multiple simultaneous threat axis to be developed against an opponent and forces him to split his defensive resources.

The defensive-fires split has, therefore, the knock-on effect of reducing the opposition facing each carrier group and, theoretically, allowing for a greater chance at local air superiority or, at least, the kind of air parity that would be quite handy?.

The drawbacks though are both significant and numerous!. As has been already covered a 28,000 ton CVS is too small for conventional, fixed-wing, AEW&C and, with a modest airgroup (likely to be on the order of 16 STOVL types plus 8 or so rotary AEW/ASW/SAR types) there are too few airframes for permanent ASuW/AAW CAP’s whilst retaining a meaningful strike capacity.

So, defensively, the CVS Group would be too weak to be risked in any kind of significant threat environment – unless perhaps it has a heavy escort screen to hide behind. Then again though if your naval service can afford such heavy screening for multiple carrier groups it can probably afford a bit better than CVS’s to form them on!.

As seriously as that drawback is the logistics headache that numerous small carrier groups generates. As I’ve banged-on about ad-nauseum small carriers dont carry much in the way of consumables (ordnance/fuel/spares etc.) so they require frequent resupply. This means that multiple groups require heavy UNREP support. UNREP ships cost a suprising amount to acquire, keep deployed and defensively screened themselves.

If the Invincible had some shares in the market, I am pretty sure these comments wud definetely have made the Invincible’s share to rise, good work on part of Invincible’s PR and marketing personnels.

So much so it seems that we may not have to part with her. Best outcome possible in my estimation. Believe me, we dont ‘market’ our serving warships we just rely on the Treasury to force their disposal at ridiculously low prices (see Chile, 3 Type23’s, $180million). In this case though the IN’s loss is most definitely the RN’s gain and I’ll settle for that!.

As for better sortie rates on bigger carriers, no denying it, but the UK can never match US capabilities with only 2 carriers anyway.

I think that we may be getting a step ahead of ourselves trying to compare our propsed carrier forces to those of the USN. The deployment of the CVF’s will be oriented towards continual presence on station rather than maximum presence in the main, however, in rare events circumstance may well require both carriers and the plans, as they stand, will allow for full surge operations.

Blackcat

Thanks for the support, I like your hunting dogs idea, fight off one dog and get bitten by the other one, thats good tactics.

Dreadnought

I agree Invincible class isn’t the ideal basis for a STOVL carrier and your proposal for a 25-28,000 ton class sounds good as I think this is about the same size as the Hermes/Viraat which has a capacity for 30 Sea Harriers.

one has to admoit that teh design of teh invincibles is not very suitable for carrier operations with a large (15+) amount of harriers

a new 25.000-28.000 ton class of stovl ships with alot more deskspace and a compacter island would be ideal to get 3 or 4

i’m not a favorer of big harriercarriers, with modern design the reduction in crew numbers can be so significant that 4 medium cariers in place of 2 big ones shouldn’t be that much more

The basic story, last I heard, was that of the three CVS’s HMS Invincible is being paid off in 2006. This is a criminal act when you consider that we have just a single LPH and (according to a couple of matelots I was speaking to last week) Vinny’s got at least 15 years left in her.

If the Invincible had some shares in the market, I am pretty sure these comments wud definetely have made the Invincible’s share to rise, good work on part of Invincible’s PR and marketing personnels. And i simply don have any doubt as to what the RN personnel has been saying to the Indian Navy and the idiots of the Indian MOD about the Harrier and the Invincible – its just a plain simple guess which don take much head scratching if one knows the story from the 1980’s.

4 smaller carriers may cost more than 2 large carriers, but having 4 smaller carriers would have the following advantages-

Easier to build, industry capable of this size ship without major ship yard improvements.

Dispersal of forces, one ship out of action=25% loss of capability.

4 carriers=4 areas of operation.

More relaxed training and maintenance possible due to higher number of carriers available for deployment.

And I’ll pretty much agree to this one, coz I have that same feeling, a number of smaller carrier like the invincible will allow for a much better assault on far a superior enemy (like how the wild dogs hunt) as it wud means that the opponent is just ‘rounded-up’. But for that its also necessary that the carrier operate the Harrier type a/c so as for it to carry them in decent numbers. And I say 20 harriers from each carrier, which again wud/shud have their own support ships wud do just fine against the likes of the American carriers.

OK, maybe its not a good idea to do without escorts, but I don’t think you need a high/low escort/capital ship mix. (capital ships=carriers and amphibious shipping).
I think a 50/50 mix would be much more useful in future operations.

As for better sortie rates on bigger carriers, no denying it, but the UK can never match US capabilities with only 2 carriers anyway. US operated day and night shifts over Afghanistan with at least 2 carriers. It is very unlikely the UK would have both carriers active for constant operations for extended periods. In fact if any threat emerged that needed the constant attention of a UK carrier, I think the weaknesses of the 2 carrier arguement would quickly come to light. (crew fatigue, maintenance, and training etc).

My biggest concern is that the UK is buying expensive eggs and putting them all in one basket!

Steve

The role of escorts is to defend against air, surface and submarine threats.
All these roles are best done by aircraft, so I think it would be better to spend money on ships which operate useful numbers of aircraft.

Couldn’t disagree more with that conclusion I am afraid.

Aircraft are without doubt vital to the prosecution of any ‘forward-from-the-sea’ campaign. They comprise the greater percentage of any groups striking power against target sets ashore, are vital to securing the outer air engagement zone beyond the fleet MEZ so critical in preventing threat aircraft getting into AShM release range and, most importantly of all, are critical in establishing AEW&C, battlespace management and strike direction.

This said though aircraft are, by nature, complex limited endurance platforms that are vulnerable to mechanical failure and adverse environmental conditions. Embarking them on naval vessels does little to mitigate these factors. Aircraft also tend to be quite bulky and awkward to stow aboard ships in significant numbers, so, using up limited airgroup capacity on medium/heavy ASW choppers, for example, to provide your only significant ASW screen not only places the bulk of your ASW capability at the mercy of the least competent matelot aboard or the next inconvenient fog bank, but, it detracts from the strike potential of the battlegroup – surely the whole point of the groups deployment in the first place.

Surface escorts, comprehensively equipped, will always be the only reliable method of providing a defensive screen in all conditions. I do agree with you that enhancing the aviation assets attached to a battlegroup is a worthwhile endeavour, particularly now that ASW choppers are becoming such powerful independent tools, but IMO that simply means that escorts should now be being designed with greater and greater aviation capabilities to take the rotary-wing load off the carrier decks.

Why did the trimaran deisgn get canned ? That seemed very promising..

Nice to have the dimensions of a 50K top side for 40k tonnage..

Scooter

4 smaller carriers may cost more than 2 large carriers, but having 4 smaller carriers would have the following advantages-

Easier to build, industry capable of this size ship without major ship yard improvements.

Dispersal of forces, one ship out of action=25% loss of capability.

4 carriers=4 areas of operation.

More relaxed training and maintenance possible due to higher number of carriers available for deployment.

problem with 4 small carriers is that 4 small carriers wont give sortie rate equivalent 2 cariers twice the size of it, according to BAe designed showed that doubling the tonnage neeted in more than thripling the sortie rate. CGI models have shown that Ideal size for a carrier is around 50000+ tons anything less is inefficent in terms of price thats why such requirement was choosen for CVF.

How do they plan to use them ? I guess a 65 kt vessel will be no litoral ship. So they have to keep some distance to the shore. That means you loose loiter time anyway. If they choose now the JSF with the shortest range, and have only half the airwing of an Nimitz, what does this mean for availability of CAS for landing operations ? Further more, the jumpjet has a smaller internal weapons bay (you may remember, the weight issue), was does this mean for priority strikes ? I mean normally it should be no problem to carry heavier weapons on external hardpoints, but for priority strikes ? That is normally the only case where this stealth voodoo makes sense…
I still think they should rather buy some landing ships, with an airwing of 8 Jumpjets and some helos. The saved money is better spend for modern infantry equipment and some new projects like FOAS and survaillance drohnes…

Aurel

I disagree that the STOVL JSF will be a bad purchase. The US Navy and US Marines operated Tomcats, Hornets and Harriers far inland over Afghanistan and Iraq with the aid of land based tankers and AEW support.
STOVL JSF will have better performance than Hornet and Harrier and the move to lighter 500lb smart bombs will benefit too.

Scooter

4 smaller carriers may cost more than 2 large carriers, but having 4 smaller carriers would have the following advantages-

Easier to build, industry capable of this size ship without major ship yard improvements.

Dispersal of forces, one ship out of action=25% loss of capability.

4 carriers=4 areas of operation.

More relaxed training and maintenance possible due to higher number of carriers available for deployment.

It would make sense in fthe British would procure 2 large CTOL carriers. Instead they build 2 medium STOVL carriers, buy the most expansive and least capable (range, payload) version of JSF. Are they able tho launch and recover Hawkeyes or anything comparable from their STOVL carriers, ore are they limited to Merlins with radars below their fuselage ?
If it is about beeing able to fight out somthing comparable to Falkland, LHD’s or something like the new Italian carrier (Cavour) would make more sense in my opinion. Especially if it saves the money to keep infantry regiments active. Look at Iraq, do the British need shiny new multi-billion-carriers ? Ore do they need some well trained and outfitted infantry ?