Doubts About Royal Navy,s Cvf And T 45 Future Ships

[contedicavour]

Cavour aircraft carrier

I can't help but agree that four to five Cavours would have been a great replacement for the Invincibles ($6.5-7.5bn quoted for two CVF). Maybe we had to concentrate our air arm on two ships to limit the crews required. What is the comlpement (crew) of a Cavour class carrier? Naval technology quotes 451 plus aircrew of 203, that's 654 x 4 = 2616. Compares pretty well with 1500 x 2 = 3000. Wait, the Naval Technology site also states that the Cavour class only hold 8 VTOL aeroplanes or 12 HELOs. So we would need six to get the joint fleet air arm afloat. Where do you get your figures for 20 JSF plus 4 HELOs from?

hello, the Cavour and the Garibaldi are supposed to sail with 6-8 Harrier II Plus and 3-4 EH-101s. This is mostly because we only have 18 Harriers and 20 EH-101s, but also because the hangars can hold 10 (Garibaldi) and 14 (Cavour) jets+helos max.
The Marina Militare site and numerous technical publications (Rivista Italiana Difesa of the Monch Publishing Group for ex) show drawings of the Cavour with a max complement of 24 jets+helos, 14 in hangar and 10 parked on the deck. This would clearly be limiting operations a bit since the ship would be really crowded, but Harriers could still take off using the sky jump with air-to-air configuration only (ie no heavy paveways or extra fuel pods).
I posted some pictures of the Cavour as it was Dec 2005. Since then, it has almost been completed and will start sailing this September.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

Everything depends on the mission. If you are facing a country as Iran or worse you'd better use several carriers and pray the USN is around to help.
However most missions (in the Adriatic at the time of the Kosovo conflict, in the Indian Ocean at the time of the Somalian mess in 1992-93, or at the time of the cleanup in Afghanistan in 2001-02, in Timor, etc) only require 1 or 2 smaller aircraft carriers.

cheers

 

[perfectgeneral]

hello, the Cavour and the Garibaldi are supposed to sail with 6-8 Harrier II Plus and 3-4 EH-101s. This is mostly because we only have 18 Harriers and 20 EH-101s, but also because the hangars can hold 10 (Garibaldi) and 14 (Cavour) jets+helos max.
The Marina Militare site and numerous technical publications (Rivista Italiana Difesa of the Monch Publishing Group for ex) show drawings of the Cavour with a max complement of 24 jets+helos, 14 in hangar and 10 parked on the deck. This would clearly be limiting operations a bit since the ship would be really crowded, but Harriers could still take off using the sky jump with air-to-air configuration only (ie no heavy paveways or extra fuel pods).
I posted some pictures of the Cavour as it was Dec 2005. Since then, it has almost been completed and will start sailing this September.

cheers

20 Harriers isn't the same as 20 JSF as the harrier is about 80% the spot size of a JSF. 16 JSF would require twice the aircrew 203 x 2 + 451 = 856. Four overloaded Cavours (up to 64 JSF) would require crew of 856 x 4 = 3424. So the CVF crew of 3000 looks better. The two CVF are far from overloaded. They could surge up to 36 JSF or more each (72+).

 

[contedicavour]

20 Harriers isn't the same as 20 JSF as the harrier is about 80% the spot size of a JSF. 16 JSF would require twice the aircrew 203 x 2 + 451 = 856. Four overloaded Cavours (up to 64 JSF) would require crew of 856 x 4 = 3424. So the CVF crew of 3000 looks better. The two CVF are far from overloaded. They could surge up to 36 JSF or more each (72+).

Yes you are right. Unless you take into account the availability rate of 2 CVF vs 4 smaller CVs... if we say a ship is fully operational 8 months a year, the UK will be able to have 2 CVFs only 4 months a year. With 4 smaller CVs, it would always have minimum 2 CVs, and even 3 during 2/3 of a year.
So at the end of the day... you have 16x3=48 JSFs during 2/3 of the year while the RN will have only 36 during 2/3 of the year.
You would also be able to participate to a lot more missions than with CVFs, although you will have more "punch" (in numbers of JSFs) with the CVF option during those 4 months when the RN will have both CVFs at sea.

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

Our AAW FFGs (US classify them as DDGs) are the F124 not F125.
F125 is still in the phase of planning and it is not going to be an AAW vessel.

Oops you're right ! F125 are the replacements of the F122 Bremens, and as such multi-purpose FFGs. By the way, if I were in charge I would look closely at the FREMM design for F125... although the German Navy will surely have to fit ESSMs and RAMs aboard instead of the Asters.
The good old dream of resurrecting the NFR90, a FFG class for all of the European navies...

cheers

 

[overlander]

by now funding have not been find to build the 2 newcvf

as richard beedall says, www.beedall.com funding has not been approved to build the 2 cvf it,s clear that britain has to built at least 1 cvf after the agreement with france to share the design (it would be ridiculous that france built its PA2 with british design and britain will not) but i think that finally only 1 cvf will be built for britain, delays in the main gate investment reveals that it will be a very big effort for the R.N. and british budget EVEN TO ORDER 1 CVF, maybe that 1 smaller carrier - lph or lhd could be ordered to complement the only cvf.

as for the type 45 i think that only optimistic people can think that 2 addittiona units will be ordered it,s clear that only 6 will be built, there are no signals at all that these 2 additional units will be ordered symply because there is not funding for them.

 

[overlander]

not to mention the terrible defence view of british politicians

even labour or conservative, after soviet union collapse only britain have suffered more defence cuts than any other western country, so maybe that after so many efforts to build at least one cvf and 6 type 45 maybe in 10 years another defence review (and would be the 10 or 11th time in 30 years ) offer to sale this new cvf and these new type 45,s to india brazil or any other medium country it not would be strange for me, the R.N. has been reduced in only 20 years from 50 to 25 escorts so we will see what happens in the future but the worst enemy that british armed forces have they are symply british politicians that consider defence in the botton and last of the priorities, as richad beedall says www.beedall.com maybe the R.N. could be reduced to a coastal force in the next 10 or 15 years with a new and definitive defence review symply another heavy cut in capabilities

 

[Supe]

'RN reduced to a few patrol vessels' - not an optimistic view from Beedall. I don't know if he's factoring in the the amphibious component in his bleak assessment of which there has been emphasis on improving in the last few years. I don't believe the British Govt would ever run down the RN as completely as Beedall states.

 

[contedicavour]

'RN reduced to a few patrol vessels' - not an optimistic view from Beedall. I don't know if he's factoring in the the amphibious component in his bleak assessment of which there has been emphasis on improving in the last few years. I don't believe the British Govt would ever run down the RN as completely as Beedall states.

Let's say the British government is doing to RN no worse than what the other European governments are doing to their navies (with the exception of the Spanish, and may be the Norwegian, governments).

cheers nonetheless

 

[ren0312]

Let's say the British government is doing to RN no worse than what the other European governments are doing to their navies (with the exception of the Spanish, and may be the Norwegian, governments).

cheers nonetheless

Well the sorry state of your navies will not be made better until you address the root cause of the problem, lack of political will, a lot of those problems will be solved if the EU will simply state that members must commit to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on the military, or even better yet 3 per cent, similar to the 3 per cent of GDP limit on your fiscal deficit rule, of the NATO countries, it seems that only the US, FRANCE , Turkey, and Greece are paying adequate attention to their militaries.

 

[contedicavour]

Well the sorry state of your navies will not be made better until you address the root cause of the problem, lack of political will, a lot of those problems will be solved if the EU will simply state that members must commit to spend at least 2 per cent of their GDP on the military, or even better yet 3 per cent, similar to the 3 per cent of GDP limit on your fiscal deficit rule, of the NATO countries, it seems that only the US, FRANCE , Turkey, and Greece are paying adequate attention to their militaries.

Well there's the quantity of budget allocated to the armed forces and there's quality. The UK spends about as much as France but manages to get more out of the same, because it builds less "protoypes" (such as the De Gaulle) and accepts that some material can be bought from the US instead of developing everything locally (Rafale, ASMP, Mica, etc).
One other thing : the budget figures are often misleading. Italy for example spends 1.5% on defense. In theory, because once you take out the budget of the Carabinieri (sort of military police doing the same job as the civilian police) we're talking 1% ... Take the Gendarmerie budget out of the French defense budget and you'll have some nasty suprises too...

 

[Grand Danois]

Estonia is building a navy with what it can afford.

Sorry but your seeing things that you would like to see but arent actually happening.

Estonia is undergoing rapid growth and will be able to support a sophisticated navy in a decade.

Well, I might like to see it, but mostly I do expect it to be a fait accompli in a decade or two, with the cuts at hands.

 

[Grand Danois]

The only time you would see these Carrier taskforces would be under NATO auspices plus you would have USN forces in the mix as well so the EU running these types of force modulation with each other isn't going to occur without US particapation IMO.

The examples of sea-air BGs provided so far are not under the auspices of NATO or US.

But you're right that SNMCMG 1 + 2 and SNMG 1 +2 and Task Force 150 together have 30+ vessels deployed each with a 1-1½ year workup. So a big lump of the European navies are tied up in the NATO structure or US operations.

And add ops like ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR etc. to that list

 

[perfectgeneral]

Turning the tide

Back in the eighties when the US was spending 6% of GDP on defence, the UK spent 4.5%.

If the peace dividend (the end of the cold war) was the only cause for cuts UK spending on defence would currently stand at 3% of GDP (in proportion to the US spend of 4% of GDP).

Clearly we aren't pulling our weight and have forgotten the relative merits of guns and butter. As for allowing our navy to lag behind France's, I would see that as a clear indication that we are underspending. The economy has benefitted from full employment of late. Perhaps that is as a result of transferring defence spending. If so it is a dangerous gamble that must stop.

Defence money must be found as a first priority of government. The next three years see spending rise 1.4% above inflation, but at that rate it will take decades to resume 3% of GDP. I have petitioned my MP and encourage every UK contributer/reader to do likewise. Where else do you expect the voice of protest to come from?

3% of GDP on Defence spending would ensure that the armed forces would increase back up to 1.1% of the working population (from 1% currently) and equip them to do the job well. Body armour, explosion supressant foam in air transport fuel tanks, the list of petty, morale sapping cuts is endless. The big cuts, like 12 to 6 T45s and maybe only one CVF (perish the thought) are the tip of the iceberg. This has to stop.

 

[contedicavour]

Back in the eighties when the US was spending 6% of GDP on defence, the UK spent 4.5%.

If the peace dividend (the end of the cold war) was the only cause for cuts UK spending on defence would currently stand at 3% of GDP (in proportion to the US spend of 4% of GDP).

Clearly we aren't pulling our weight and have forgotten the relative merits of guns and butter. As for allowing our navy to lag behind France's, I would see that as a clear indication that we are underspending. The economy has benefitted from full employment of late. Perhaps that is as a result of transferring defence spending. If so it is a dangerous gamble that must stop.

Defence money must be found as a first priority of government. The next three years see spending rise 1.4% above inflation, but at that rate it will take decades to resume 3% of GDP. I have petitioned my MP and encourage every UK contributer/reader to do likewise. Where else do you expect the voice of protest to come from?

3% of GDP on Defence spending would ensure that the armed forces would increase back up to 1.1% of the working population (from 1% currently) and equip them to do the job well. Body armour, explosion supressant foam in air transport fuel tanks, the list of petty, morale sapping cuts is endless. The big cuts, like 12 to 6 T45s and maybe only one CVF (perish the thought) are the tip of the iceberg. This has to stop.

Unfortunately British public opinion doesn't seem to care much. I wouldn't even be sure that the Tories would spend more on defense if they came back to government. The economy is slowing down, interest rates are going up, and no party can propose cutting the spiralling social costs (NHS to start with).
The only way out is getting the maximum out of your budget, sharing R&D with a maximum of other countries, buying more off the shelf, etc.
Last but not least, I fear the Army is in even more desperate need of extra resources than the Navy.
Sad times indeed some may even be hoping that a new Falklands type conflict arises to prove the usefulness of a strong Royal Navy !

cheers

 

[Big-E]

The examples of sea-air BGs provided so far are not under the auspices of NATO or US.

But you're right that SNMCMG 1 + 2 and SNMG 1 +2 and Task Force 150 together have 30+ vessels deployed each with a 1-1½ year workup. So a big lump of the European navies are tied up in the NATO structure or US operations.

And add ops like ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR etc. to that list

Isn't this picture beautiful...:teary

I can't remember the last time there was a multi-national Carrier Task force.

 

[Grand Danois]

Isn't this picture beautiful...:teary

I can't remember the last time there was a multi-national Carrier Task force.

A very beautiful picture indeed.

HERAKLES...?

 

[Big-E]

A very beautiful picture indeed.

HERAKLES...?

Yep!

 

[Sea Toby]

One of the problems facing governments worldwide is the increased costs of new weapons which are increasing twice as fast as the inflationary rate, if not faster. The days of US$ 20 million fighters are now USS$ 40 million, with stealth fighters approaching US$ 100 million or more. The price of Nimitz class aircraft carriers are approaching US$ 8 billion, not the US$ 3-4 billion of the first few built in the 1970s. Lesser capability LCS ships for the US Navy cost twice as much more as the FFGs built in the 1980s. One of the items in governments budget which is increasing even higher is health care. Something is gotta give, and it appears health care has a higher priority than defense.

These technological advances cost money. We have come a long way since the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar anti-air missiles. Newer missiles with much more capability have replaced the older first generation inaccurate missiles. With frigates costing in today's world US$ 400 million, destroyers costing US$ 1 billion, and nuclear propelled submarines costing over US$ 2 billion, not even America can replace every ship one to one.

 

[mark22w]

One of the problems facing governments worldwide is the increased costs of new weapons which are increasing twice as fast as the inflationary rate, if not faster. The days of US$ 20 million fighters are now USS$ 40 million, with stealth fighters approaching US$ 100 million or more. The price of Nimitz class aircraft carriers are approaching US$ 8 billion, not the US$ 3-4 billion of the first few built in the 1970s. Lesser capability LCS ships for the US Navy cost twice as much more as the FFGs built in the 1980s. One of the items in governments budget which is increasing even higher is health care. Something is gotta give, and it appears health care has a higher priority than defense.

These technological advances cost money. We have come a long way since the Talos, Terrier, and Tartar anti-air missiles. Newer missiles with much more capability have replaced the older first generation inaccurate missiles. With frigates costing in today's world US$ 400 million, destroyers costing US$ 1 billion, and nuclear propelled submarines costing over US$ 2 billion, not even America can replace every ship one to one.

Agree fully.

Give me the proposed RN with 2 CVFs and 6 T45s over the Invincible/T42 combination of the 1980's any day of the week. As to the 50 escorts Overlander mentions I'm not sure what the 'Ikara' Leanders or Tribal class frigates would provide other than personnel nightmares... The later T22 and T23 frigates were and indeed are a step change in capability.

Reality check is smaller numbers, increased punch, greater flexibility.