Obi Wan RussellA new design would be sensible learning from our experience of Ocean and benefiting from new developments in ship design and construction.
Limited Command and Control facilities considering that Albion and Bulwark are fitted out for that but plenty of bunk space and maybe a hospital section seem logical so something a bit bigger then Ocean maybe around 30 thousand tons would be good.
Of course if its that big might as well fit a Ski jump so it can act as a secondary deck for the F35 in an emergency.
Agree totally, but let’s make it ‘fitted for but not with’ a ski jump for now, lest the pollies figure out what we’re up to!;):diablo:
Obi Wan RussellThis is Rumour control, and here are the facts part 2:
Deterrent cannot be guaranteed with three subs, and carrier rumours false says Navy chief
Michael Evans, Defence Editor
The Royal Navy will only be able to “guarantee” continuous deterrent patrols with Trident ballistic-missile submarines if the Government agrees to keep four boats, the head of the Royal Navy told The Times yesterday.
It would be possible to get by with three submarines, provided the Government was prepared to risk breaking the 24-hour, 365-day patrol cycle that had been maintained for 41 years. Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope said that Gordon Brown had posed a perfectly legitimate question when, in planning for Trident’s replacement, he asked the Navy to study whether the nuclear deterrent patrols could be fulfilled with three boats.
The Government announced in 2006 that it planned to replace the four-boat ballistic-missile Vanguard class boats with a new submarine system and an upgraded Trident being developed in the US. The programme, with four new boats, would cost £20 billion, and the first submarine has to be ready for service in 2024.
Admiral Stanhope said that in response to the Prime Minister’s question, posed this year, the Royal Navy was examining whether it would be feasible to rely on three submarines. At any one time one of the boats would be in refit and another would be coming out of or preparing for refit, leaving just one submarine available for operational service, he warned.
‘We can see no case for the cancellation of Trident by any future government’
“If there were to be a major incident on board, such as a fire, this could cause the continuous patrol cycle to be broken,” Admiral Stanhope said.
The First Sea Lord and the other two Service chiefs will be playing a significant role in the defence review to take place after the general election, and work is already under way on the broad objectives.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has told the Ministry of Defence staff that “support for operations in Afghanistan is now the main effort for defence”.
While agreeing that Afghanistan had to take priority, Admiral Stanhope warned that it should not be the focus of all planning. “When Afghanistan is consigned to the history books there will still be a whole lot of different issues in the future which we will have to deal with, such as the security aspects arising from climate change and energy supplies, and 95 per cent of Britain’s trade goes by sea,” he said. Britain also had 14 dependent territories that required security guarantees.
Conscious of the different requirements of the three Services, he said his fellow chiefs agreed that the building of two large aircraft carriers would have multiple uses for the future, although, he admitted, “resources are going to be extremely tight”.
If Britain wished to retain an interventionist role in the world, the carriers, which he said would be 64,000 tonnes, would provide a platform for ground-attack aircraft, helicopters, air defence assets and unmanned aerial vehicles (reconnaissance drones). They would also have hospital facilities.
Admiral Stanhope acknowledged that the Army and the RAF might have slightly different priorities when limited resources were shared out.
The Government, he said, was committed to building two aircraft carriers, and it made little sense to start talking about scaling them down to smaller ships. He dismissed a report that one of the carriers might be switched to a helicopter carrier, instead of having the Joint Strike Fighter F35, the replacement for Harriers. “We can put more helicopters on the platform if we want but we will not be converting one of the 64,000-tonne carriers into a helicopter carrier,” he said.
The admiral said that the £4 billion carrier programme involved 10,000 workers and 57 British companies. He also pointed out that a considerable amount (about £1 billion) had already been spent on the two ships which will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The two carriers which would be around for 40 years, represented “a good investment”.
He also underlined the multiple roles to be played by the fleet of Astute class nuclear-powered submarines, the first of which set sail yesterday from Barrow-in-Furness for sea trials.
Admiral Stanhope regretted that the Astute programme was four years late, but he said this was because Britain had stopped building submarines for a period, and the skills had had to be rediscovered.
Astute decision
• The Royal Navy is to be given seven Astute-class submarines, although the defence review next year might lead to a scaling back of this capability. The Navy was initially promised eight vessels
• Measuring nearly 328ft (100m) from bow to stern, HMS Astute is longer than ten London buses, and will be able to circumnavigate the globe while submerged
• Two aircraft carriers cost £4 billion. Four new Trident subs plus missiles costs £20 billion
• Navy chiefs get upset when the campaign in Afghanistan is described as an army operation: 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines, part of the Royal Navy, has served two six-month tours
Source: Times database
Obi Wan RussellWhen the CVF program started (conceptually at least) back in the mid 90s they were originally going to be 40,000 tonnes, so there would be no way even then an air group of 75 JSFs EACH would have been remotely possible. Lazy bored journalists looking for anything to fill the pages of their rags. The worrying thing is suposedly intelligent people give them any credence.
This is Rumour control, and here are the facts! With apologies to the late Brian Glover (prison warden, Alien 3)
There will be a lot of rumours flying around between now and the election, but it should be remembered that NO decisions will be made or announced until the Defence review has reported AFTER the election. The journos know this, so they are just making stuff up off the tops of their (pointy) heads in the hope someone in government will be spooked and break cover. Similarly various members of the forces and their supporters will be fanning the flames and feeding rumours masquerading as facts to the journos in order to whip up public support for their own particular branch. Cue tales of “RAF Aces face the Axe!” etc. Even though the RAF hasn’t had an ACE since WW2, as you have to shoot down five enemy aircraft to qualify, and the RAF hasn’t shot down anything since then. Brave soldiers of the RAF regiment who guard airfields may be worth their weight in gold out in the Stan for example, but they are not ‘Aces’. Heroes yes.
So here is where we stand. BOTH CVFs have been ordered. Two ships, one contract. Both will be delivered to the RN. Both will be capable of operating the F-35B. A first tranche of about 50 F-35Bs will be ordered once trials with the three F-35Bs we have on order now have been completed. These fifty aircraft will allow the phasing out of the Harrier GR9s of JFH between 2016-2020. JFH itself will stand up it’s fourth sqn, 801NAS next year now that the committment of airframes and crew to the Stan is over. Deployments aboard the CVS’s will increase for the next few years with 10+ aircraft deploying at a time. The RAF sqns will recieve less sea time the the FAA sqns, so will only qualify for daytime ops. The FAA sqns will qualify for night ops too. When the Lightning enters service it has already been announced that the FAA sqns will convert first, with the RAF continuing to operate the Harrier fleet for a couple more years until the transition is complete.
So the plan is that in 2018 or thereabouts, we will have two Queen Elizabeth class carriers in service, five sqns of F-35B (four frontline and one OCU, with the last Harriers leaving service that year), to provide one air group and one strike carrier on call at any given time. The second carrier will either be in refit, at short notice to relieve the ‘on call’ carrier or it will be acting as the ‘on call’ LPH. I believe HMS Ocean will be retained into the early 2020s as a matter of necessity. Further orders of F-35Bs will I believe be forthcoming thereafter, to eventually lead towards the oft quoted figure of 138 or somewhere in the vicinity. Wether or not these aircraft go on to forma second carrier air group or become replacements for the Tornado GR4s is another matter. Financial problems in 2009 will not have a direct bearing on orders to be placed teen years from now though…
Obi Wan RussellRe: Royal Navy aircraft carrier may be sold to India
NO. IT. WON’T! :rolleyes:
This is now officially the silly season for journalists writing on military matters. Treat everything you hear between now and the Election with a HUGE pinch of salt, especially if it emanates from those well known supporters of the armed forces, the GRUNIAD! If you believe all the stories circulating, the RAF will have no aircraft or bases, the Navy will have ceased to exist and the Army… will still be soaking up the bulk of the defence budget to defend west Germany from the Warsaw Pact. Oh sorry that last bit is true:eek:;)
For example:
“Another option under consideration is to only equip one of the carriers with aircraft, leaving the other to only operate with helicopters, which could save more than £3bn. Alternatively, the two carriers could share one complement of planes. The original plan envisaged equipping each carrier with 75 new US-made Joint Strike Fighter planes, but the cost has soared from the original price tag of £18m each.”
I don’t recall their ever being any plan to equip the CVFs with this many aircraft. 36 F-35Bs as the max warload plus 4 MASC and 6 Merlins. Gotta love those weirdy beardy journos and their strange imaginations!
Obi Wan RussellEr – no. Most ex-RN carriers have been scrapped straight from RN service or sold to other navies. Argentina (3, including 1 ex-Netherlands), Australia (3, 1 passed on to Brazil), Brazil (1, via Australia), Canada (2, not including 1 loaned & returned) & the Netherlands (3, 1 passed on to Argentina) have all had ex-RN carriers. India has bought 2 out of the 12 sold to other navies, which isn’t exactly “most”.
Argentina: 2 carriers
ARA Independencia V1 (ex HMS Warrior R31) bought 1958, scrapped 1971
ARA Veinticinco De Mayo V2 (ex HNLMS Karel Doorman R81, ex HMS Venerable) bought 1969. scrapped 1999
Brazil: 2 carriers
BNS Minas Gerais A11 (ex HMS Vengeance R71) bought 1960, scrapped 2004
BNS Sao Paolo A12 (ex FS Foch R99) bought 2002, in service
Australia: 3 carriers
HMAS Sydney R17/A214 (ex HMS Terrible) bought 1947, in service 1949-1973, scrapped 1975
HMAS Vengeance R71 (ex HMS Vengeance R71) on loan from 1952-1955, returned to RN, See Brazil.
HMAS Melbourne R21 (ex HMS Majestic)bought and in service 1955-82, towed to China 1985, scrapped circa 2001 (!)
Canada: 3 carriers
HMCS Warrior CVL 20 (ex HMS Warrior R31) on loan 1946-1948, returned to RN, see Argentina
HMCS Magnificent CVL 21 (ex HMS Magnificent) on loan 1948-1957, returned to RN, scrapped 1965
HMCS Bonaventure CVL 22 (ex HMS Powerful) bought 1952, in service 1957-1970, scrapped 1971
Netherlands: 4 carriers
HNLMS Gadila & Macoma: MAC ships operated during WW2 1944-46, both returned to mercantile service and scrapped 1958
HNLMS Karel Doorman (I) (ex HMS Nairana) escort carrier served 1946-48
HNLMS Karel Doorman (II) (ex HMS Venerable) bought 1948, sold to Argentina 1969
India: 2 commissioned, 3 projected
INS Vikrant (I) R11 (ex HMS Hercules R49) bought 1957, in service 1962-1996, preserved as museum Mumbai
INS Viraat R22 (ex HMS Hermes R12) bought 1986, in service
INS Vikramaditya (ex RNS Admiral Gorshkov, ex Baku) bought 2004, in service?
INS Vikrant (II) under construction Cochin
INS Vishuul projected
France: 8 carriers
FS Bearn converted Battleship, in service 1927-1966, scrapped
FS Dixmude (ex HMS Biter) transferred 1945, scrapped 1966
FS Arromanches R95 (ex HMS Colossus) transferred 1946, bought 1951, paid off 1974, scrapped 1978
FS Lafayette R96 (ex USS Langley CVL-27) loaned 1951, returned 1963, scrapped.
FS Bois Belleau R97 (ex USS Belleau Wood CVL-24) loaned 1953, returned 1960, scrapped 1962
FS Clemenceau R98 in service 1961-1997, scrapped 2009 UK
FS Foch R99 in service 1963-2000, sold to Brazil
FS Charles De Gaule R91 in service 2000-
Spain: 3 carriers
SNS Dedalo R01(ex USS Cabot CVL-28) in service 1967-1988, returned to US and scrapped 1990s
SNS Principe de Asturias R11 in service 1988 –
SNS Juan Carlos I L61 (included because it has capacity to act as relief carrier supporting Harriers when PdA is in refit)
Thailand: 1 carrier
HTMS Chakri Narubet 911. In service (barely) 1997-
Just a quick round up of flat tops in service around the world (excluding the USN, RN and Soviet Navies). Feel free to add/ subtract as you see fit.
Obi Wan RussellThe story is pure BS. Both CVFs will be for the RN. Both will take F-35Bs. We are getting a first tranche of about 50. further orders don’t need to be placed for up to ten years, when the current economic woes will be a distant memory. ANd the Vikramaditya will be only 18 months from commissioning!:diablo:
Obi Wan RussellI made this point in the IN thread. If India (thats a big IF) purchase this big ship what are the planes she can operate from it. It doesn’t have a Ski Jump or EMALS/CATS does it ?
Would it need F 35B/Harrier ?
1. It DOES have a ski jump.
2. it CAN be refitted with catapults and wires.
3. we AREN’T selling any of them. If India wants one they can palce a contract for hull 03 if they please. They’ll get a better ship than either Vikramaditya or the IACs.
Obi Wan RussellThread drift alert!:eek:
Obi Wan RussellEven if we go down the route of new Wokkas for the light blue and all their now second hand Merlins for the CHF, the problem is still that to maintain numbers a new batch of Merlins will still have to be ordered and the existing HC3s will need a significant conversion to suit them for the maritime environment; they don’t have folding rotor blades or tails for a start. Not an insurmountable problem by any means but don’t for a minute assume the ‘Green’ Merlins can just be handed over to 845, 846 and 848 NAS’ and everything is hunky dory. Also it has been suggested that there will be leftover ‘Grey’ Merlins from the current HM2 upgrade program which can be used to replace the ASaC SKs, again there appear to be at best only about 8 airframes to replace a force of 13 SKWs. I think there will have to be an order for new Merlins whichever way it goes…
Obi Wan RussellYou’re really overestimating the amphibious assault capabilities of the RN. Unlike the USN/USMC, the RN will most likely never be able to afford a fleet of V-22s, and even the prospects of PASCAT seem to be dim at the moment, so you can forget LCAC capabilities for a second wave.
On the contrary, you are really underestimating the RN’s amphibious capability. Remeber we retook the Falklands with far less capable ships. Also, I made no reference to either V-22s or LCACs, neither of which figure in the RN’s plans currently due to their cost. Without LCACs, the well deck can only be used whilst stationary, hence it is only a feature of second wave RN amphibs. First wave goes by air, Junglies currently (Sea King HC4/HAS6C).
I’m not suggesting a well deck for the CVF, I’m only stating the obvious, that these carriers are far less cost effective in the LHD/LHA role than purpose built vessels. I wasn’t even addressing the LHA-6 class directly, but speaking in general, as it seems far more likely that the RN was looking to Europe for the now dead LPH replacement.
The older US concept of the LHD is one even they are moving away from with the new America class. Yes using a CVF in the LPH role is less cost effective than a purpose built design, but it makes use of an asset that is then kept available for use in it’s primary role at short notice. A replacement for Ocean appears to be deferred at the moment (though the ship herself can be extended to cover the gap) so it makes sense to get more use out of the carriers, just as we do now with the CVSs. Carriers are not single role ships anyway, they are flexible air power projection platforms and always have been. I think it is possible that there may be a reciprocal arrangement in the middle of the next decade whereby France builds a couple of modified Mistrals (minus the well deck) for the RN, and in return we build PA2 (at least as far as the fitting out stage) for the MN. They have a ‘production line’ for Mistrals and we have a ‘production line’ for the CVFs (being set up as we speak). The current warship building plans for the RN aren’t based upon the maximum shipyard capacity, but the minimum sustainable capacity. Extra orders can be accomodated…
Obi Wan RussellThe problem with that line of thinking is that the CVFs lack the vehicle decks, accommodation facilities and docking well of a LHD/LHA. No doubt, they do have a great deal of unused internal volume, given the very small prospective combat air group. However, they are no more amphibious ships than the converted Centaur class “commando carriers.”
The dirty secret is that a true LHD/LHA would have been a vastly cheaper ship, both to procure and to operate. A purpose built LHD/LHA would also have accommodate the likely, very minimal combat airgroup as well as an aircraft carrier function.
I disagree. For a start take a closer look at the America class, they have deleted the well deck from the design. In the LPH/LHA role, ie carrying the first wave of assault troops, getting those troops ashore by helicopter in the largest possible numbers is the priority. A well deck soaks up a large part of the internal volume, decreasing troop numbers for the first wave. The heavier equipment eg tanks, troop carriers etc can follow up in the second wave, once the beach head is secure, in LPDs and LSDs. The LPH/LHA has to stay mobile for it’s own protection, meaning it can’t use a well deck anyway. Better to keep the well decks on the second wave vessels (2x Albions, 4xBay class. Adding one or two more well decks won’t make any real difference, but will render the biggest ships in the fleet sitting ducks). Add a well deck to the CVF design and you push the price up even further. As it is their great internal volume maximises troop capacity, and they have already been designed with wide assault routes to the hangar and flight deck, just like HMS Ocean.
Obi Wan Russellah, thanks for the perspective of the games at play here.
another case of the “build for but not with” for the RN ?incidentally, what would people expect the tornadoes to be replaced by, F-35 or some strike variant of the EF ? one type each for the RAF and RN would probably make more economic sense.
Considering the timescale for the replacement of the GR4s (2020s), unless a large number of Typhoons are bought now and mothballed, the only replacement for the GR4s on the table will be the Lightning and/or some model of UCAV. The Typhoon production line will have closed many years before the Tornado replacement is ordered. Most expect a mix of the two to replace the Tornadoes, and most talk of the F-35C rather than the A model as more suited to the RAF’s needs due to it’s longer range.
Obi Wan Russellthis is more of a cancellation of the 2nd air wing than the second carrier,(did I get that right) if so the thread title is misleading of sorts.
given UK military’s funding woes this is the best thing that could have happened IMO.
This is more of a case of ‘Nothing has changed’ but the Navy has found a way to spin the status quo as a major cut in capability, therefore hopefully persuading the treasury that they have already taken their share of pain, and thus avoid any REAL cuts in the next round. Before this report came out the Navy was planning to commission two new carriers and re equip 800NAS and 801NAS with 12 F-35Bs each. Now, the Navy is…planning to commission two new carriers and re equip 800NAS and 801NAS with 12 F-35Bs each. The first tranche of F-35Bs was always going to be around 50 aircraft, to achieve IOC around 2018-20. The production lines will be open well into the 2020s and nobody in their right mind would expect the recession to still be a problem 10+ years from now. More aircraft can be ordered late in the next decade to fill out a second air group, by which time the RAF will be looking to replace their Tornado GR4s…
Obi Wan RussellTo fit a third CVF you’d have to delay FSC another few years, can the T22B3’s and T23’s be run on that much longer?
I think the delay would only be two to three years, as it would only involve those yards concerned with the super blocks, not the final assembly of the carriers. I also have no doubt that whoever gets in next year would welcome the chance to delay a project like FSC (which is UK funded) in favour of a Frecnch funded project (PA2) which would keep UK shipyards busy for a few years. Funding the Mistral(RN) LPHs would be a little awkward in this scheme, but nobody would accuse the government of being sensible about defence. The existing Frigate can be extended as required, the issue will be more a matter of creeping obsolescence of equipment rather than the ships’ wearing out. Less of a problem for the T23s that get Artisan, CAMM and 2087, they will be the last to go anyway.
Obi Wan RussellThe only way we will ever se Mistrals in the RN is if we do a reciprocal deal with the French along the lines of you build us two Mistrals and we’ll build PA2; it makes sense in asmuchas we have a ‘production line’ set up for the CVFs and the French have a ‘production line’ set up for Mistrals. They would have to be modified to British requirements though, primarily meaning deleting the Dock and vehicle deck in favour of more troop accomodation. RN amphibious philosophy has no need for an LHD, the first wave of troops are landed by Helicopter from a LPH which has to stay mobile for it’s own protection. Once the beach head is secure the LPDs and LSDs can come in and land the heavy equipment and the second wave of troops. Even the USN is moving away from LHDs with the new America class, which although classed as LHAs are really closer to LPH in concept. LHDs are better suited to Navies that cannot afford specialised amphibious classes like LPD/LSD/LPH. A reciprocal deal of say three Mistral LPH for one CVF/PA2 might prove beneficial for both countries, though the french shipbuilding industry might kick up about it.
Sign In
