JonesyNovice,
If you reread Swerves post timestamped 22:13 you’ll find that Broncho’s ‘succint and spot on’ posting was regarding a point no-one was actually disputing!.
Easy to win a contest when you are the only one involved in it!:rolleyes:
JonesyI’ve been playing with the deck layouts that Swerve’s Italian forum have been using and it looks to me that an airgroup of 14 JSF(8 struck below and 6 deck parked) with about 6 EH101 personally a 4/2 split of AEW/SAR&ASW would be about the biggest practical airgroup I’d want to entertain.
You might squeeze a couple more airframes aboard, but, I’d imagine that such a move would just place extra strain on embarked stores and aircrew for little real advantage. Plus it must be remembered that Italy is only ordering 22 F-35B’s so generating 14 airframes whilst holding some for a modest training programme and keeping a couple in attrition/maintenance-status is probably going to be as much as the Italians could wish to achieve!.
As Lawrence states though two short(ish) squadrons of JSF and enough rotary airborne radar for local coverage is a fairly useful capability set when your mission goals are fairly limited as the MMI’s are.
JonesyWell at least you appreciate the difference between FY96 dollars and FY08 dollars so thats something I guess. It was just a basic lack of research on what you were talking about that was the problem and not an inability to comprehend the subject. Does make a person wonder how seriously you are taking this debate when you can so flippantly double the ‘estimated cost’ you placed on Vik earlier?.
130-150 mil per year for vik is certainly inflated. Its not going to be more than $ 100 mil. It doesn’t matter if Nimitz costs more to run I had anyway put cavours operating cost at 0, anything more only weakens the cavour. The site replaced and with or, it should be 8 harriers and 12 helis. Thats 20 not 24 that was quoted while Baku carried 30 without any modifications. No matter what spin you try cavour is a over priced mediocre product.
When you quoted turbine-powered frigate money for the support costs of a large steam-planted aircraft carrier a short while ago, Broncho, how the hell do you know what is inflated or not?. Or is it just ‘inflated’ because you really, really want it to be so?!
Baku carried 30 aircraft did it?. These were MiG-29’s were they?. I think you may find they were Yak-38’s and Ka-25’s airframes with a rather more modest deck-footprint than a Fulcrum. Far be it from me to make you actually do some research on your topic though!.
JonesyThe 8 JSF figure comes from the fact that the hangar is specified, in full aircraft carrier mode, to park 8 JSF’s.
What that doesnt state is that there is a deck park for an additional 8 JSF’s available. Each space being stated as offering room for 12 choppers instead of the fixed wings.
So its plausible, with deck parking, for Cavour to support an airgroup of 12-14 JSF and 4 Merlin AEW at full surge capacity.
PS – For Broncho – a quick play round with a calculator, averaging US inflation at about 2.6%, means that a figure of U$160mn in FY96 dollars works out at about US$220mn FY08!.
JonesyBroncho
The cost of operating the NImitz is about $ 160 mil per year. The cost of operating gorky is going to be nowhere around that figure. I would venture about say $ 50 mil per year. Even assuming a zero operating cost for a larger Cavour built in Italy at the cost of $ 3-3.2 bil,
Where are you getting a quote of $160mn per annum costs on a CVN from?. It costs circa £20mn per annum to support a Type 23 frigate….whats that US$35-40mn. The budget for operating the UK’s 3 CVS’s per annum was on the order of £200mn or close to US$400mn. You think you are going to run a 45k ton CV with a whumping great steam plant, arresting engine and all that good stuff for US$50mn per annum. As a great man once wrote ‘put your analyst on danger money baby!’.
Being charitable Big Vik is going to cost you US$130-150mn per annum depending on deployment schedules in routine support only. You are going to have big ticket overhauls every 7 years or so as well which will push that average price up farther. For round figures lets say $140mn times by 25 years…..so….we’re ballparking at US$3.5bn PLUS the $1.2bn that the ‘free’ carrier is going to cost and we’re looking at US$4.7bn whole-life.
What were you saying about Cavour again?
EDIT: Its alright Broncho I’ve found the source of your Nimitz class $160mn claim. It stems from the VAMOSC report FY96. I dont think I need say any more regarding someone who quotes 12 year old support figures as current.
JonesyA fair point, but the 114mm will be overkill for a MCMV/OPV/Survey vessel, whilst these days anti-piracy and anti-drug patrols (which are very probable duties for an oceanic patrol vessel which will be one of C3’s missions) require something more than the nominal armament of existing RN OPV’s. The 57mm and 76mm guns are both proven, effective guns that have the punch to act as a real deterrent against irregular vessels and are fully capable of being fitted to a modest vessel. Both can also be fitted as modular self contained units, so if C3 is switched to a hydrographic survey role they can offload the weapons and load up survey gear, extra accomodation etc. and go off and survey. A few months later they want an armed patrol vessel, the survey gear is offloaded and they drop in the 57mm gun and a couple of 20mm cannon, clear the stern of survey gear and get the heli-deck up and you’ve got your oceanic patrol vessel. At least that’s my conception of C3, which seems to be not a million miles from VT’s ideas.
One thing that the Mk8 mod 1 will be, by the time C3 comes to fruition, is cheap!. Its not the best naval gun mount ever invented and we have, of course, a precedent for operating the OTO76 with the Peacock class boats. Presumably therefore we’ll still have the odd copy of the tech manuals for the mount in a cupboard somewhere. That said though we will have plenty of Mk8’s that can be refurbed into mod1’s coming off the 42’s, we have spares and logistics well set for the mount, we have lots of tiffies more intimate in the workings of the beast than they’d wish to be and, most simply, we have lots of 4.5″ ammunition stockpiled that doesnt have to be bought.
I appreciate what you say about landing a modular 76mm for survey taskings etc then refitting it as appropriate for the mission profile. For my money though I’d say that mounting the Mk8 and, if it isnt needed for the mission, just leave the Weapons O/M’s behind and dont bother with the magazine loadout for that trip…I’d expect that to be cheaper and easier than getting a dockside crane involved lifting the mount then transporting it to secure storage etc. It also has the advantage that, if the boat faced an urgent operational need to rerole to OPV tasking, then its just a matter of flying the weapons crew and C-17 load of shells out to a nearby friendly port and jobs done.
Also whilst the Mk8 is not exactly the zenith of naval gun technology it has, on several occasions, proven to be quite sufficient to scare the cr@p out of druggies in go fast boats thinking that, at seven or eight miles range and opening the gap, there was nothing that a 30knt British warship could do to them. That thought disabused by a rapid sequence of very large shell splashes ahead on their course.
I think you are right that the Bofors or OTO Mount is a more appropriate weapon for the tasking. Like Phelgan I dont see the RN inducting a new weapons system anythime soon though!.
JonesyJonesy
Vikramaditya is also faster have twice the range, probably more powerfull sensors and better air to ground capabilities (How much weight can F-35B, let alone Harrier pull up in VTOL mode ?!).
Which is barely of consequence when we are talking of strategic capabilities. I’ll put it simply…tell me one mission that Big Vik can undertake with more success than Cavour could?. Fleet air defence, strike, sea control…both carriers are equally limited in their capabilities its just that the Italian carrier will last longer and be cheaper to deploy year-on-year.
They just have to get an AEW radar on the V-22, its a perfect fit for several navies. Certainly the type would be perfect for the RN’s STOVL configured CVF and the IN’s STOBAR Vik (+ads).
I dont know so much about that to be honest. I know the RN IS interested in V-22, in a distant fashion, the talk of a joint radar platform with the USMC utilising V-22 and the Searchwater/Cerberus mission package has been quite persistant and may inevitably prove to have some substance to it. For my mind its heading in the wrong direction though I’m afraid. Osprey is a complicated platform with some very strange flight characteristics when operating off a deck….as I understand it one was nearly lost approaching a ‘gator freighter’ when the pilot accidentally got one engine pod over deck before the other and the thing nearly flipped over?.
Plus the fuselage, IIRC, is actually smaller than Merlins and is unpressurised. The only real advantage is therefore, maybe, an extra 100knts of transit speed. Worth the expense of inducting a new type – I’m not convinced. Personally I’d rather see the Merlins keep the Searchwaters and us aquire Mariner UAV’s (especially now were also operating Reapers – essentially the same air vehicle!) and do the stand-off radar work with robots!.
“The price was unrealistic,” a Russian official said, adding “it became clear that the price was not adequate once the refitting process (on the warship) started.”
Just spotted this…what a laugh…if you go back in the archive of this site you’ll find several people, with naval/maritime experience, saying that the contract value was nowhere close to what it would cost to complete the work!. This Russian is being serious is he???
JonesyThe Vik carries a few more choppers and will have greater embarked aviation fuel bunkers and, possibly, better stowage for air-ordnance, spares and extra aircrew etc.
I call these limited advantages when you consider that Vik is larger than the French de Gaulle and Cavour is a 27k ton CVS!. Yeesh!
JonesyThe part where I said F-35B WAS an option for the IN was where again?.
I said, yet again, that given roughly equivalent airgroups that Viks advantages were very limited compared to Cavours. Its therefore not that wise to be calling Cavour all that limited!. How are you misunderstanding this?.
JonesyJust transfer the F-35’s to gorky and it will beat the crap out of cavour with F-35’s. Its the plane thats capable not the ship.
So if its the plane thats capable not the ship how does an F-35B carrying Cavour suffer in comparison to an F-35B carrying Vik?. Besides I didnt say that Cavour/F35B was ‘better’ than Vik/MiG-29K did I?.
I said that Cavour was year-on-year going to be far cheaper to operate – which it is!. Then I said that, given an approximately equal sized fastjet airgroup, 14 F-35B’s vs 16 MiG-29K that Vik wasnt going to offer all that much extra capability – which it isnt!.
JonesyTurbinia/Swerve,
Dont know so much about designing in the capability to significantly ‘up-gun’ C3. I think that could be the slippery slope to the Treasury….cough…cough….MoD ditching C2 in favour of a few weapons modules to bolt on to C3 and call that job done. If a TI capable radar, like a 996/ARTISAN, is fitted to C3, and I cant see a reason why it wouldnt if we are standardising that set as the fleet medium range 3D radar, adding a VLS SAM like VL MICA wouldn’t be all that difficult from a technical perspective, but, my view would be if SAMs were potentially necessary for a certain patrol slot then we should be sending a C2 not a C3.
I’m much more in favour of C3 being optimised as a low-end, but truly oceanic-capable, patrol vessel. I do like the idea of it retaining fleet-capable performance as I feel MCM assets have to be able to keep up with the deploying task group.
I like the idea of C3 being adapted to fit line-handling gear astern, mission-deck?, for a for-but-not-with fit of an LF active tail to give an LCS-analagous littoral ASW capability, with its embarked chopper, adding to fleet ASW potential and paying its way in a taskgroup once the MCM aspect is neutralised. That extra kit is under the heading of ‘nice-to-have-when-the-money-is-available’ naturally.
Other than that I think its critical that the Warfare Dept on C3 is kept to as few people as necessary to support a medium calibre mount, a Phalanx and some manually laid light guns.
JonesyThe cavour is very limited. It needs STOVL aircraft and JSF is not an option for IN. A streched one might have been good but I would be surprised if it cost less than twice would gorky would cost.
A stretched one is what you’ve got for IAC and at least that side of it is reasonably sensible – if not exactly what the IN is on record as stating that it wants from its carrier force.
In capability terms if Cavour can embark an airgroup of 14 or so F-35B’s (the MMI arent getting 22 F-35B’s to support a Cavour airgroup of just 8!) then the capability advantage of the Big Vik isnt going to be all that great over Cavour!.
JonesyComparing apples with air-conditioners here boys!!!.
The Russian CVS is second-hand whilst the other designs mentioned are brand new. Cavour operationally, year-on-year, is going to be LOTs cheaper than the Vikramaditya!.
Cant believe the Russians are still getting away with this!. I think even a French arms salesman would be impressed by the skills shown by the sales team here!!!
JonesyI think, in definition terms, the best outline I’ve seen is what EdLaw wrote a page or so back:
Sixteen T-45 versions (8 T-45s and 8 C-1s, which the general consensus here says should be a stretched cheaper version of the T-45) and sixteen overseas patrol vessels, i.e. eight medium-high intensity ones, and eight low-medium intensity ones.
This shows precisely the operational concept that the RN needs to migrate to and is what the C1-3 concept would be the framework to enable. Essentially this is 16-17 primary warfighters from T45 and C1 classes and 16 plus patrol assets specified to cover the patrol taskings currently assigned to the escort fleet.
Amongst those patrol taskings there are deployments that are low threat i.e Atlantic Patrol (North) known as APT(N) and there are deployments where the threat to an RN vessel could swiftly become very significant i.e Persian Gulf/IO. There are also taskings that are currently reasonably benign but have the potential to evolve quite badly i.e APT(S)/Falklands. This, IMO, means the study of a 2-tier ocean patrol fleet is emminently sensible. wouldnt, for example, be too impressed sitting on a vessel just south of Hormuz, watching tactical fighters dance in and out of AShM release range on the air search set, with nothing more than a refurbed Phalanx to keep me safe.
Likewise I’d question the wisdom of patrolling the Gulf of Mexico during hurricane season with a vessel fully tooled up with SAM’s etc when what I really need is a couple of cranes, a loading ramp and some space to park a couple of platoons of JCB’s and embark a decent sized team of engineers.
C2 and 3 will always be different vessels in operation and optimisation, but, the need to deploy transoceanic and cheaper than a full-up warfighter is precisely the same for both.
JonesyWhat makes you say that Lawrence?.
The Canadian 280’s could embark and operate a pair of Sea Kings off a sub 130m hull with a full-load displacement short of 5k tons. I dont think its asking much for single Merlin ops off a circa 115m 4k ton hull.
Why does the OPV need the accomodation….simple one of its primary tasks for C3 will be disaster assistance/friendlies evac…especially on far east and APT(N) taskings. We’ve seen numerous occaisions where an escort has been trying its best to assist with some natural disaster but has been limited to what it can do with its chopper and a small team of engineers/medics until heavier units turn up. Well, if we are designing something to meet a requirement, we can do better. Transient accomodation space for refugees or local civil assistance teams and multimission deck space for stores/equipment mean that the RN can be undertaking signifcant assitance efforts before the amphibs arrive…perhaps even obviate the need to dispatch an amphib?!.
All that for what real cost?.
Frosty,
Initially on this thread my view of C3/C2 had a shrink to fit IEP machinery fit with a single MT30 prime mover and a couple of modest auxilliary diesels. essentially I felt this allowed for commonality throughout the whole RN surface fleet damn near….with CVF, T45, C1/2/3 all being driven off the same machinery.
IEP is great for reducing the maintenance and servicing overheads of any vessel as it elimnates at a stroke the need for long, hull penetrating, shafts inline with finely-balanced reduction gearboxes. You simply draw a heavy-load cable off a generator-set coupled to the turbine and feed the power to a couple of electric motors and theres your propulsion. Crew reduction, less yard time and easier repairs being the ensuing advantages.
Using the same turbines across the fleet also means economies in training, spares and support and operational deployment advantages of having personnel instantly transferrable from a CVF to a C3 etc, etc. Then we have, again, the economies of scale…ordering an additional 25ish shipsets of MT30’s from RR following on from T45/CVF means savings across all of the C-type boats and, probably, lower unit costs for support fleet-wide.
Obviously looked at individually MT30/IEP looks utterly ridiculous as a machinery solution for C3. Looked at fleet-wide though it makes a bit more sense. Truth be told, while the engineer in me is deeply in love with the concept of a single logistics train for turbines fleet wide and the notion of all engineers undertaking a single-type training programme with uniform skillsets across the various classes of vessels, the realist in me is saying ‘IEP on C3 – behave yourself!’.:o
My concept of C3 is similar to yours and, realistically, is simply just a slightly enlarged version of what Vospers are offering. I dont know about the ‘flex deck’ if you are thinking similar to that on an Absalon but open reconfigurable deck space is definitely something that is called for.
25knts is probably sufficient to stay with the LPH and the Bays so I’d probably settle for that off a CODAD plant of some type. The 7000nm range you cite being about right.
Hangar and flight deck capable of sustained Merlin ops and for the continunce of flight operations in heavy sea states.
Armament and sensors as I’ve described earlier – a medium calibre gun forward …type is largely unimportant – for cheapness I’d agree to a Mk8 mod 1 with a refurbed Phalanx off a decommed 42 aft. I dont think the RN will see a need to induct the OTO76 or Bofors 57 and bring in a new system to support any time soon to be honest. Couple of 50cals or Miniguns to round that off is more than sufficient. Sensors would be minimal – the RN is in the process of replacing its standard 3D surface/air search set (the 996) with, BAE hope, the ARTISAN set. We’re likely to be buying more than a few and supporting them for a good while so it seems very cheap not to provide them for C3 – that backed with the usual RN optronics should more than suffice.
Sign In
