TurbiniaVery sad, I’m sorry to hear that. In the case of car carriers it’s not just fire but also stability. Plus the nature of their construction means a conversion would need major structural modification, which is very expensive.
TurbiniaThing is whilst the C17’s are doing transport duties everybody knows the deterrent is weakened, also there are massive diplomatic questions, namely if the world knows that a C17 can be ICBM armed then wherever they fly the RAF would need evidence that they were not nuclear armed, this was a big issue in the cold war with nuclear declared assets being very tightly regulated for non nuclear use in case it triggered an incident. Also, to be credible the deterrent has to be available 24/7, and not just available but any enemy has to know that there would be a sure response whatever the outcome of a pre-emptive strike and nothing but an SSBN, or possibly the old style system of keeping B52’s on constant station within short range of their weapon launch points can do that.
On a practical level, the modifications to launch an ICBM from a C17 wouldn’t be cheap, it’d make it a horrifically expensive air lifter, much better just to buy extra airlifters and leave the SSBN’s to worry about nuclear deterrence.
Another factor is that building SSBN’s will support BAE in an area where the UK is still genuinely world class (ie. building large high capability nuclear subs), support a lot of employment and keep a large part of the contract value inside the UK.
TurbiniaHi Neptune,
The plans were based around hull forms where their longitudinal box girders provided most of the required stiffness, there would be additional stiffening but unlike most monocoque type hull construction where the hull and deck are load bearing a container ship or container Ro-Ro does offer huge scope for hull modification at minimum expense, this is not true for a car carrier. I’ll try and e-mail you when I get back to work, as you know my former employer did a lot of studies and proposals on this subject, some of which I saw first hand and spoke to the naval architects and marine engineers first hand:)
TurbiniaThe problem with any Ro-Ro is free surface effect, and top weight and windage, and also they opt out of certain ship construction rules like the B/5 rule. They can be repaired easily for bangs and knocks but if their water tight integrity is lost they’re in massive problems, they’re also very suceptible to fire damage.
Trust me on this one, I’ve seen a lot of proposals for auxilliary warship conversions first hand and the favoured platforms are container ships and container Ro-Ro’s.
TurbiniaHow much would maintaining a strategic bomber in the air, within launch range of any conceivable targets, 365 days a year 24 hours a day cost? How many aircraft would it need?
TurbiniaIf we want a tactical capability then it needs to be an additional capability, be it sea, land or air launched cruise missiles, conventional bombs, artillery or whatever. That opens up the whole issue of proliferation, and also the question of whether you could ever use tactical nukes. Hard enough to see where you’d use strategic nukes, but there is a scenario for their use as a weapon of last resort, using tactical nukes in a situation of normal warfare would open a pandoras box that nobody wants open, bearing in mind our own troops could soon be at the recieving end if we ever go down that road.
TurbiniaThe problem with car carriers is they’re very suceptible to damage, even by merchant standards, and you’d need to cut off most of the superstructure to operate as a carrier, which would basically take you to the start point of a container Ro-Ro.
The superstructure issue of a container/container Ro-Ro wouldn’t have to be such a big issue, as Neptune says the accomodation/bridge modules sit port-starboard across the ain deck, but there have been quite a few studies that have demonstrated it would be perfectly feasible to remove this complete and fabricate an offset island structure like a conventional carrier and compensate for the stability.
TurbiniaAlso worth bearing in mind for the Trident system they’re not looking at threats today, but the potential for future threats, which we just do not know and cannot know. Hence the desire to keep a top end deterrent.
TurbiniaNo manned bomber provides the sort of instant long reach of an ICBM, and given the geography of the British Isles land based silos would be impossible to sell, so we come back to SSBN’s. Air launched platforms along with other platforms like cruise missiles launched from surface ships are all very good if an additional delivery mode, but no way would they be better than the SSBN or even land based ICBM if you’re only going to have one system. As for bombers being suitable for other purposes, my understanding is that that may be problematic under nuclear agreements, and also if you committ the delivery system to other tasks then you don’t have a deterrent delivery system whilst those other tasks are being carried out.
TurbiniaIf you are only going to have a single delivery system then SSBN’s are the best way, they’re stealthy and capable of operating without an enemy knowing where they are until it is too late, preventing counter measures or a pre-emptive strike. On the question of cost, in simple terms the money sounds a lot, but when you look at what the government spends elsewhere, including some of the waste, and consider that the money will be spread over more than two decades, it really is no big deal.
TurbiniaTotally agree,
if u want a cheap, basic, not armed, civilian standard design build buy BPE. It’s big, flexible as lpd/lhd and sometimes carrier (very short air operations), Very cheap 400-500milion € and very slowly (21 knots max).
If you want a powerful, self defence armed (Empar+Aster15), built with robust military standard, good speed (29-30 knots) and powerful engines (4 gasturbine LM2500), build for longer stovl air operations and command (c4I), but very limited lpd capability buy the expensive Cavour (1,5 bilion €).Who cares the speed for a stovl carrier? Is speed important for the launch of the aircrafts?
Speed, possibly not for aircraft launch/recovery but probably yes for combat manouvering, fast transit capability and fleet operations. You can say the same about frigates and destroyers, indeed in the 40’s and 50’s the British took an approach that ASW escorts needed only limited speed as ASW operations tend to take place at low speeds. However most frigates and destroyers are still capable of high 20’s-30knots or more.
The CVF is a good design from what I’ve seen, we can argue forever about the merits of STOVL vs. CTOL, I was originally quite in favour of STOVL but now France is in the program favour CTOL. Whatever, the CVF design offers an excellent, flexible vessel capable of future upgrades, and along with PA2 they will be the most powerful carriers anywhere outside the USN, not a bad vessel all told.
TurbiniaHM Ships Liverpool, Iron Duke, Cumberland, Chiddingfold and Grimsby are to undergo refits as part of an alliancing strategy which aims to make warship support more sustainable, efficient and affordable.
The award of the five contracts, worth a collective £31 million, represents the first package of work to be managed as part of the developing DLO’s Surface Ship Support Alliance. This is the contracting approach being explored which is designed to seek out the best means of delivering the most effective surface warship maintenance and repair, industrial stability and value for money.
Babcock Engineering Services’ dockyard at Rosyth has been awarded three of the five Royal Navy warship upkeep packages, covering HMS Liverpool, a Type 42 destroyer, and HMS Chiddingfold and HMS Grimsby, Mine Countermeasures Vessels. The other contracts see HMS Iron Duke, a Type 23 frigate, being completed by Fleet Support Limited in Portsmouth, and HMS Cumberland, a Type 22 frigate, being awarded to DML Group.
The three yard operators are working with the DLO to develop the alliancing strategy and to share surface warship support workload in a way which best meets their collective business needs, while providing a good deal for the taxpayer.
The development of the Surface Ship Support Alliance is a key element of the Maritime Industrial Strategy sustainment strategy, as it aims to ensure retention of the key maritime defence capabilities identified by the Defence Industrial Strategy.
We’ve already gone through this and Rosyth was the victim (along with Swann Hunter) however the government decided looking after their own vested interests was more important and Rosyth has continued to get orders so now either Portsmouth or Devonport may well close. The lesson is this, if you’re a shipyard or base worker make sure you vote for the party in power and have plenty of government ministers who need the votes of your region. :rolleyes:
TurbiniaHopefully this is good news for Barrow in Furness at least. Also Faslane, unless the SNP get their way and block future plans at Faslane, I’m sure Devonport would be willing to take on the job and see Faslane close so Devonport and Portsmouth survive as future RN bases…….
TurbiniaThe principle weapon of an aircraft carrier is it’s aircraft, just as the principle weapon of an LPH or LPD is the marine infantry they launch. Self defence certainly has a place, and personally I see a good argument for Aster 15 on the CVF in addition to CIWS like Goalkeeper or Phalanx, but any more is wasting space that could be better used by aircraft handling facilities. And I agree with the point that the main thing is to get the ship built, you can improve the basic ship at any time as funds allow.
TurbiniaAccording to the Australian Warship Mag in 2004 Maersk announced a proposal for a power projection ship based on its S Class ships. The article said [briefly] that the almost full length flight deck and hanger deck would be made with 40 125 ton modules.Accomodation modules below deck consist of converted ISO 12m shipping containers with accomodation for 1000 with rec. laundry medical etc. space provided Hanger deck would accomodate typically 6-Chinooks,14-uh-60 Blackhawk,8-Kiowa. The ship would also be able to accomodate ,Harrier, F35B or MV22 Osprey. A mill. galls of jp-5 could be carried.The ship could carry 200 ISO 20 ft containers in the 34000 squ. ft. cargo deck. All up 95700 tons ,length 347 metres, sustained speed of 24 knots,range 15000nm .Maersk stated that the US could aquire 5 of the converted ships for $1 billion. This enormouse ship is not really an aircraft carrier but a forward staging base however the possibilities are staggering There are enough landing spots to allow simultaneous operation of 15 Chinooks.I suspect that most of the embarked helos & possibly aircraft would be parked on deck.The article states that the ship could accomade all up 72 CH-46 Sea Knights
I have not the slightest idea what happened to this proposal but what might be able to be achieved The ship did not carry any landing craft but has all the cranes etc. for efficient offloading.
What I would say to this is that you need to remember that Maersk are looking at maximising the funds they can get from off loading older ships, and that this particular proposal may not offer the best value for money or the best technical solution. Trust me on that one.
Sign In
