duffgunHello
Just thought I would make a post here I don’t often post here but just thought I would give my opinion on the CVF modernisation to cats and traps.
I work in the marine IT industry and have to install computer systems networks and other electrical equipment onboard ships, mostly in refit. The ship yard I go into has worked on a few of the Royal Navy’s P2’s. I would not want to take on a job refitting all the extra equipment into an already built QE it would be a nightmare.
First up I believe that the ship was designed before a decision had been made on what the backup choice of catapult and arrestor gear would be used in case of dumping STOVL, so big voids where left for the equipment to be installed into, now from my experience I know that a lot of work would have to be done to that void to get it ready for the installation of the equipment. As they had not decided what version of the equipment to use they are going to have to figure out where all the cable runs are going to go how to get all the electrical power up to the cats how to install all the network cable and computers required for the cats how to plumb in extra fire suppression systems for the electrical systems and other pipe work needed. I guaranty that you would be ripping parts of the ship apart to run all the cabling.
Then you have got to work on the deck mirror which again will need all its electrical systems and network cable run through the ship which will mean making internal modifications. You also have the installation of extra equipment on the island. The installation of the arrestor gear will be another challenge on an already completed ship.
I have seen people that say it will be a simple bolt in 12 month exercise but I just don’t see that, starting from scratch with POW would be much easier but a near £2bn cost for refitting an already completed QE for all the equipment I can believe, some people seem to think that the external structal changes are the hard part but they are infact the easy part imo.
The only saving grace having been onboard a couple of Type 45 destroyers is they are more spacious than the Type 42 so cable runs would be a bit easier.
duffgunWould the Charles de Gaulle be able to operate quickly (within 24 hours) off Libya? I heard it was already in the med.
duffgungod i don’t post on here much but this sealordlawrence guy is a complete cxck forums are meant for people to discuss things that we all have a common interested in, I like talking about the Royal Navy not because i care about some naval doctrine but because i like them as machines.
I don’t care that you think you know most things about Naval warfare the people in this thread want to talk in a polite way not have some smart cxck constantly shouting dwn there throats with pathetic little corrections.
duffgunReally, and how effective was the air cover provided by a single rapidly aging carrier that was less than ideal for the aircraft it was operating in the first place?:rolleyes: The contribution of such a unit to the overall NATO operations would have been extremely limited. The light fleet carriers (Invincibles) were a much better solution that allowed for 100% (or near to) coverage by powerful units whilst not taking away resources from the escort fleet. Which is why I point (yet again) to the studies of 1975-77 as creating the best balance between cost and capability for undertaking the doctrine defined by the governments foreign policy objectives.
No it was not, it went back into the governments many other priorities, health, education, the economy etc etc.
The two ships today are performing a completely different doctrinal role, the purpose of the Royal navy today has little if any resemblance to that of the 1970s. However I would advise you to look at what has happened to the escort fleet in the last decade.
im just taking the **** as you said i was completely wrong, The Ark was a very useful ship in the 70’s.
duffgunThere was never an intention to reduce the Carrier fleet to just two units. Denis Healy himself said in interviews that the plan never went below three carriers, as this was the minimum necessary to guarantee one forward deployed at all times (by 1960s standards, even by 1990s standards). The Navy’s plan was to ‘Phantomise’ both Ark Royal and Eagle by 1970-72 to operate alongside CVA-01 until such time as CVA-02 and 03 could be completed (late 70s early 80s). Victorious was to be directly replaced by CVA-01 in 1972-74, Ark in 1978-80 and Eagle in 1984. Hermes would probably have been sold as a ctol carrier either to Australia or India during the 70s (at least this was the expectation from the British side) and Albion and Bulwark would have had as a matter of necessity to have soldiered on into the 1980s until replacements could be provided.
The current two carrier plan is flawed, quite simply because at best it means 80% coverage instead of 100% which three carriers could provide.
yeah Healy said 3 units or none, I agree that 3 is the ideal number. and the Navy really needed more units if it was to keep east of suez.
duffgunExcept that the British government determined that such a doctrine was beyond the means of its economy and thus brought it to end. Beyond making a minor contribution to the massive US effort one has to ask serious questions about the viability of a two carrier fleet. At best this provide an availability of one Hull at any one time and even this is questionable. And of course that is not to mention the negative consequences that such a procurement would have had upon the escort fleet.
Completely wrong the Ark Royal operated fine by itself for some time and gave Britain air cover throughout the 70’s until being replaced by the Invincibles that although were designed as ASW ships they were always intended by the navy to give a task force aircover, A pair of ships would allow one in service with the other in refit or repair, maybe not 100% of the time but most of the time. Britain is operating fine with 2 ships today.
Completely wrong the money put aside for the CVA-01 project was not put back into more escorts.
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
duffgunCompletely wrong. Britains ‘place in the world’ is defined by the policy of its government. The policy of its government did not require it to have carriers. It required to operate from the GIUK line west.
Your completely wrong what ever goverment policy was around at the time with so many british citizens around the world and Hong Kong still in British hands at the time it was essential to have a force that was capable of operating anywhere in the world and without air cover this is impossible. Government policy’s are often short sighted and what ever you say the guys on board the ships that were lost in the Falklands i am sure would have wished aircover was available, The Falklands proved how bad that policy was.
duffgunInteresting responses, the real reason imo that the fleet was withdrawn east of suez was solely a political and financial one if labour hadn’t got into power CVA-01 might well have been built as the conservative goverment had announced it was providing funding for the first unit. If the political incentive was there funding could have been made available although i feel the CVA-01 was just too expensive and a ship of around 40,000 tons could have been more realistic for the east of suez role.
Even with the withdraw of the East of Suez commitments a pair of medium sized carriers were still realistically needed for aircover if the fleet did have to operate outside its bases whether that is in the naval doctrine of the time is somewhat irrelevant as with British position in the world it needs carriers for this you can never fully rely on any other nation to back you up.
We also have to remember that CVA-01 was not only designed to operate east of suez it would also counter russian airbases in the north this threat was still there even after the withdraw from suez, the Ark operated in this role though most of the 70’s so the need was there. With the withdraw east of suez i would have liked to have seen a pair of 40,000 tons medium ships operating the Phantom Buccaneer and AEW built to replace Ark and Eagle. The option of the Clemenceau was considered but ruled out as the platform was considered unstable and to small. The CVA-01 is a very intresting what if.
duffgunAccording to the book Rebuilding the Royal Navy which was written by DK Brown who was a ship designer RN subs were significantly in front of other designs in sound suppression and propeller design, but i believe that some of these skills were lost between the design of the Trafalgar’s and the Astute.
duffgunHonestly, the extent on any future expansion of the RN would probably be the Acquiring of the final 6 cancelled T45’s, the ordering of 20 C1’s &/or C2’s to bring the escort numbers back up to the 32 in the SDR as well as the recommissioning of Invincible in the CVS Role with Ark Royal as a Dedicated LPH.
Would give:
2 CVS
2 LPH
12 T45
20 C1 & C2
2-4 LPD + LSD’s
20-30 Large OPV’s/Sloops replacing the MCM and OPV(H) fleets. In an ideal world additional ones would be purchased to replace the Archer’s and Scimitar’s at Gibraltar, Cyprus and in the RNR.RFA expanded to support two simultaneous task groups of whatever the optimal size is considered, plus the normal operations around the world.
Invincible and Illustrious would be replaced by the two CVF’s, Ark Royal and Ocean by a pair of purpose built LPH’s.
In an ideal world i would like a front line fleet off
2 CVF
12 Fully equiped Type 45
20 C1-C2
2 LPH
duffgunThe offical disposal date as quoted in DK Browns rebuilding the royal navy are as follows.
Victorious 1972, Centaur 1973, Albion 1974, Ark Royal 1975, Hermes and Eagle were expected to last into the 80’s.
Once it had been decided to reduce the fleet to 3 units the design was now due to replace the Ark. The Ark was in fact in a dreadful state by the mid 60’s most of the structure and machinery dated back to the war and although there were plans to rebuild her these were dropped in favor of a new ship.
Its interesting that the Navy looked at the Froch design but rejected it as they considered it to small and unstable, They also looked at the Forrestal design but that was considered to expensive.
The few things I always found strange were the early due for disposal date of the vic i would have thought she would have lasted past 1972, and why was the Ark refitted in the late 60’s instead of Eagle? Eagle was a much better ship and with the same money spent on her would have lasted way into the 80’s and would probably have still been in service during the falklands.
duffgun
duffgunHi, this is my first post, just thought i would bring this up as i my granddad worked on the rebuild of the Vic. From what I know reading several books on the Vic there was never any plan to operate Phantoms from her, she was due to be disposed in 1972 so there was no point. a Phantom did do a touch and go on the Vic though. Hms Hermes was not due for disposal until the early 80’s and the navy was planning to operate Phantoms from her seems to me it would be a bit marginal.
Sign In
