I been wondering about this – when they say that PoW will be used as an assault carrier to replace Ocean – do they mean that literally or is it more a way of saying that prior to the SDSR the expectation was in time of war the RN could surge with two carrier carrying a full air wings each of F-35B but now the surge capability will be one full air wing of F-35B and one full complement of helicopters – in effect signalling a cut by 50% of the F-35B purchase, and a much more likely situation is that sustained combat operations would be a single carrier with may 2 squadrons of F-35B and increased complement of helicopters?
Of on a tangent but given the asymmetric threats to ships in congested littoral waters is possible to equip the upcoming RN Wildcats with mini-gun pods or laser guided rocket pods instead of their usual weapons, and use the Wildcat to kill any small, fast surface vessels (like Iranian speed boats or Al Queida suicide boats)?
PoW is indicated as option to replace Ocean just because most likely scenario is that Ocean bows out without a dedicated replacement being procured. And with F35 numbers being smaller than hoped as well, the navy could use PoW as LPH. In better times, it was envisioned that the LPH role would have been “secondary”, just like one of the Invincibles always uses to be ready to act as “Commando Carrier” and thus LPH.
Hopefully, this is a stopgap measure, however, since i don’t see a 2 billions ship being risked 50 miles away from enemy coast for doing the work a 300-million ship would do better.
The RN and RM hope was that in the late 2020, when Albion and Bulwark will need replacement as well, a new class of three large Camberra-like assault ships, with both hangar and dock, would have replaced the whole front line amphibious fleet.
A study was also started in 2003, however, for a 18/20.000 tons dedicated LPH to replace Ocean with in 2018. Ultimately, though, the SDSR will decide the true fate of all this.
As to the Navy Wildcats, for ASsW work they are going to carry Sea Skua II and the Light Multimission Missile of Thales in two clusters of seven missiles each. Up to 4 Sea Skua and 14 LMMs at once, it seems from this photo below. The LMM being tailored exactly to destroy fast corvettes like the Iranian fast-boats, and the Sea Skua II for the up-to-1000 tons threats. (interesting to note that Sea Skua is considered “Heavy duty” by RN while the french plan to use it as “Light duty”. Makes you wonder what a ship like Type 45 or C3 could do, lacking Surface-Surface missiles, to counter a enemy frigate seen the limited power of the Sea Skua missiles of the embarked choppers…)
Also, 20 mm gunpods are a possible load reported for Wildcats, and rocket pods too, but should a need arise, laser-guided Hydra rockets and miniguns could certainly be fitted as well.
http://defense-update.com/products/f/fasgw.html
According to Jane’s last month,
“RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts
By Tim Ripley
16 July 2010UK Royal Air Force (RAF) chiefs have offered to cancel the GBP3.65 billion (USD5.57 billion) BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4 programme just weeks before the first production aircraft are due to be delivered to the service.
The offer, made in the RAF submission to Phase 2 of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) earlier this month, also includes the early retirement within five years of all of the service’s Panavia Tornado GR.4 strike aircraft and the closure of three main operating air bases.
It is hoped these cuts would allow the RAF to reduce its payroll by 5,000 personnel and cancel long-term support contracts with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce worth in excess of GBP3 billion, according to UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials involved in the SDSR process. Hundreds of millions of pounds would also be saved by reduced aircrew and groundcrew training requirements for the slimmed-down RAF.
The Nimrod cut would not save significant amounts of money from the GBP3.65 billion procurement costs of the aircraft because almost all of this amount has been spent, except for around GBP200 million to cover the final delivery of the nine aircraft during the next two years….”
It seems that it’s the support and crewing and operating costs of Nimrod that are weighing against it. IMHO, the maritime patrol aircraft mission should be transferred to the Royal Navy and fulfilled by 8-12 C-295 MPAs – far cheaper to buy, AND to operate.
The part you evidentiate is determined mostly by the Tornado cut, not by the Nimrod cut (only with Bae, there’s a contract of 890 millions for Tornado Availability Program, 10 millions for plane for upgrades if they are to live into the 2020, contracts with Rolls Royce, training, infrastructures, fuel…). Don’t be so easily fooled.
With as little as 200 millions to be “saved” scrapping Nimrod, you suggest buying 8-12 new planes. Train crew on a whole new platform. New simulators. Integration of Stingray on it, and possibly of ASRAAM and Harpoon too (if it can carry it), new ground infrastructure.
Are we sure any significant saving at all would be possible? Perhaps on the very long term, if really running these planes is so much cheaper. But savings on the very long term aren’t what the government is seeking.
So if Nimrod goes, it likely does without replacement. Which Jane’s in fact does not even suggests.
Sign In
