That the period up to 2020 has a gap, or indeed gaps, in capability is undoubtedly true. However it is far too late to do anything about that. We cannot recommission the Invincibles and we can’t build new ships that are not already planned in that time.

So the question that needs adddressing is beyond 2020. Personally I think the RN capability will be more balanced than it has been for a long time, because the Harrier capability was limited against modern aircraft and the
T42’s were very out of date.

I would agree that their is hollowing out and stretch. But that is necessary given the economy and to maintain the balance.

Interesting that me mentions “a token anti-submarine force”. I’m not convinced that ours is any more token than other nations, though it does overlap with my view of where the RN is now weak, which is in numbers of frigates. I would like to see the numbers of T26s increased. I would vote for that just for their general utility rather than ASW specifically.

I must admit I thought it was a considerable number, but the figure did not change when they were pressed.

Incidentally and I know it’s been discussed before, but one naval officer expressed his, ahem ‘distinct dislike’ of the two island design and that now CATOBAR is going to be included, the for’ad island location has meant that the second CAT is located to the left of the flight deck instead of being located at the bow ‘alongside’ the first CAT.

From its first conception there were those who liked and those who dis-liked the concept. Some were knowledgeable and some less so on both sides. As has been said, like many other aspects of warship design, it is a trade off and whether you think it is a good idea depends on which aspect you place more importance.

The design was judged technically better (by the RN and MOD) over the BAES design during the selection process, and was retained even after BAES then took responsibility as prime, despite many opportunities for re-consideration.

FWIW we cannot copy the US CVN design, as we could not afford to build it, nor run it, nor would it meet the UK requirements or standards if we could.

Welcome back ConckneyJock

note wrt to kevlar armour that my understanding is that this would not stop the major nation anti-ship missiles, but is more about defending against asymmetric threats (RPGs etc).

Against both categories, not only active defence, but other passive defensive measures (such as redudancy of systems & cable runs) are at least as, or more important than, armour.

However I doubt if many can accurately compare any 2 class of carrier in these respects, and if they could they probably couldn’t post it in the internet.

Thanks Frosty, I missed the fact that the CVF armour had been removed,

Still, I reckon you could add it back in without making the trade-off that different.

As for speed, in theory you can out-manoeuvre an enemy, but you still can’t do that if the replenishment ships can’t keep up. In practice with modern sensing technology I think it would be damned difficult. Very hard to keep a CBG (including aircraft) hidden from RESM, CESM, sonar and IR

@benroathig

I appreciate that there are other costs, but the same is true the other way around (e.g. nuclear decommissioning which is far from cheap). Plus the QEC complement is much less than 1/3 of that for Ford. That ripples through into many other savings elsewhere

You only need more escorts if you use the additional flexibility by sending them in different directions, you could include 3 per CBG without any more escorts. Even if splitting it would not necessarily imply that many more escorts

@Frosty. Apart from putting a different aircraft mix on QEC (which she could take now she is CATOBAR) I cannot think of anything in her design that makes her less suitable for being the core of a blue water CBG:
Comms : better than Nimitz and I suspect as good as Ford
CMS: better than Nimitz and I suspect better than Ford
ATC: much better than either

What else do you think makes CVF unsuitable for a blue-water CBG?

The only big downside is the need for additional fuel replenishment. But given the need for those anyway to fuel the aircraft I don’t think that is a deciding factor against all the advantages

With the massive complement required to run a Nimitz, it would be cheaper for the French to pay full price for a QEC/CVF and run that for say 20 years, than get a Nimitz free and do the same, i.e. I doubt that the French Navy could afford to run a Nimitz.

ETA – too slow

SDSR ‘should’ have committed money for anything that requres a decision between now and 2015. Such programmes may still be subject to initial gate or main gate, but the budget necessary for that period (and in some cases beyond) should have been committed.

There a lot of programmes for which that is the case, most of which are far below the level of reporting