HMS Queen Elizabeth.. disaster carrier programme?

[RobWilliams]

Should we make this a dedicated Queen Elizabeth Class/UK carrier strike thread?

Anyway, some interesting comments from the head of the Fleet Air Arm Rear Admiral Russell Harding

U.K. Royal Navy Widening Scope Of Carrier Use

The carriers will form the centerpiece of the Responsive Force Task Group (RFTG), capable of embarking a wide variety of rotary-wing platforms as well as a squadron of the U.K.’s planned F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters. Although the last Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for an embarked complement of 12 JSFs on the ship, Harding suggested that a new Joint Air Maneuver Package could be developed in support of amphibious operations.

A surge force of up to 24 JSFs could deploy on the ship along with what he described as a Maritime Force Protection package of nine Merlin Mk. 2 helicopters equipped for the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission, while a further four or five would be available to provide an airborne early warning capability. A littoral maneuver package also is envisaged, potentially using the Royal Air Force’s Chinooks, the upgraded Merlin Mk. 4, Army Apache attack helicopters and the Wildcat helicopter.

Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”

Decent ideas, IMO. Could do with upgrading the 8 spare Merlin airframes though, the first package would have us deploy 14/30 on one ship and considering the Merlin is the Navy's dogsbody then it'll have homes on the RFA supply ships escorting and aboard ASW frigates. Stretched fleet.

But interesting proposals nonetheless, i liked the info about potentially moving up from 6 landing spots to 10 landing spots. 250 troops in one lift is quite a feat. Just as it's good to hear that 300 RN personnel will deploy aboard US CVN's and LHD's plus pilots for SHornets & Harriers + 1 officer deploying with the French Navy on a Super Etendard.

2015, the year i'm looking forward too.

 

[kev 99]

I think the most salient point from that lot Rob is that in all probability what we're looking at in practical terms for a 'surge capability' of fast jets now is 24 and not 36.

Which is probably a great deal more practical and within budget, the SDR that set out the requirements was 15 years ago and the economic outlook then was very different.

 

[RobWilliams]

36 was always going to be proper warfighting mode. 24 is much more reasonable for the vast majority of circumstances, add in extras like Apache and we've got a nice air group capable of being valuable in a variety of scenarios. Generally we would always have Merlin HM2's aboard to help provide ASW cover, IIRC during the Falklands on Hermes 6 ASW helos were required to have two ahead of the task force with dipping sonars 24/7.

But, to those of you reading this, that does not mean that 24 aircraft are the absolute maximum deployable for any circumstance. When things go bad we will shoehorn as many aircraft in them as we can get.

Had to add that caveat because i still come across people who think our carriers will always top out at 12 . . . . .

As long as we fund weapons integration on the F35B well enough that is, and that comes down to

• Meteor
• Storm Shadow
• Brimstone 2
• SPEAR 3

For starters.

 

[swerve]

I think the most salient point from that lot Rob is that in all probability what we're looking at in practical terms for a 'surge capability' of fast jets now is 24 and not 36.

That's a 'surge' with a hefty helicopter contingent.

 

[swerve]

...Gripen NG(N) There's a spot of UK content there....

A quibble: it's more than a spot.

 

[kev 99]

That's a 'surge' with a hefty helicopter contingent.

Very, I might be reading too much into it though, after all that configuration does have more than a faint wiff of 'Sea control' about it.

 

[StobieWan]

A quibble: it's more than a spot.

Oh, okay We have design lead, ya got me there. And I *like* Gripen - I'd be tickled pink if it became a success on the carrier deck.

 

[KiwiRob]

Oh, okay We have design lead, ya got me there. And I *like* Gripen - I'd be tickled pink if it became a success on the carrier deck.

I read recently that Boeing has had discussions with Saab over using Gripen as the basis for T-X USAF trainer project, which could lead to a common trainer for the USN.

Since this is a thread about CVF has construction started on modules for Prince of Wales?

 

[RobWilliams]

Indeed it has, Prince of Wales construction is well under way.

The construction of Prince of Wales is coming along much faster, this coupled with delays to Queen Elizabeth going to sea means that the blocks internally will be completed to a much higher standard than they were for Queen Elizabeth.

 

[KiwiRob]

Thanks for the answer Rob.

36 was always going to be proper warfighting mode. 24 is much more reasonable for the vast majority of circumstances, add in extras like Apache and we've got a nice air group capable of being valuable in a variety of scenarios.

I've always thought even 36 seamed pretty light for a vessel this size, it's a fair whack bigger than CdG which has a a capacity of 40 aircraft. Surely CVF must have the ability to operate far more if really needed? I know wikipedia can't always be trusted but it suggests a full load of 50, no split between helicopters and F-35 given.

 

[RobWilliams]

50 has been thrown around as THE maximum, it will definitely require a large amount stored on the deck and would prohibit the deployment of Chinook under any circumstances. The 40 number is the traditional RN behaviour; they prefer to put out numbers which are lower than they truely are for operational reasons. Even on their website it's down as 40+ so numbers can fluctuate depending on the actual type aircraft deployed.

It has been designed specifically to support F35B operations, IIRC it's also been calculated that the optimum sortie generation from the class comes from 36 jets. A larger number puts more stress on the crew, weapons handling systems, stuff like that and it just makes things less efficient. So it's not just about the numbers of aircraft, it's the frequency which aircraft can be launched and conduct missions. In such a configuration, it's been worked out that the class can conduct 420 combat sorties over 5 days with 110 of those being within the first 24 hours. AFAIK for the first 24 hours, we're planning on being able to conduct 3 sorties per aircraft, so if you want to work out our maximum 'first day' strikes just multiply the F35B complement by 3.

But the general idea about the size is bigger = better. The larger the ship we build the better the growth margins there are for the future, the more stable the platform is for flight operations and it gives us significantly more flight deck real estate which makes things operate much more smoothly and much more efficiently than on a smaller flight deck.

Bigger ship also equals more bunkerage for fuel (both ship & aircraft), stores, spare parts and munitions to allow the ship to conduct combat operations faster and for a longer period than a smaller ship.

So it's not just about increasing the number of deployable aircraft, it's about making the operations and supporting facilities to be designed to make those aircraft operate more efficiently than they would otherwise.

 

[kev 99]

Thanks for the answer Rob.



I've always thought even 36 seamed pretty light for a vessel this size, it's a fair whack bigger than CdG which has a a capacity of 40 aircraft. Surely CVF must have the ability to operate far more if really needed? I know wikipedia can't always be trusted but it suggests a full load of 50, no split between helicopters and F-35 given.

40 aircraft for CdG is probably not going to be doable in the future once the MN switches to all Rafale, it doesn't have folding wings after all.

You could probably get a higher than 40 airgroup on QE class if you really tried, not sure what effect it would have on the operational tempo though. Probably not ever going to find out either.

 

[StobieWan]

CVF is a bit bigger than the USS Ranger and that was usually listed as carrying 70-90 aircraft for instance. I think a lot of the requirement to get that many aircraft on board declined with rising reliability and safety on the deck - in the earlier days of jet aviation, jets broke themselves lots, whereas now, there are fewer losses just flying around the deck.

That plus the amount of multi-mission aircraft has slimmed the types down to just a few instead of the mix of light and heavy strike, interceptors etc.

With that in mind, yes, I'm sure you could line up another twenty F35B on deck, cram the hangars etc but I doubt you'd see any direct benefit unless you started to take serious battle casualties. Certainly keeping enough technicians on tap to service and repair the cabs, finding the room to move them around, there's definitely a point where more becomes less if you see what I mean.

 

[1805]

This BBC article on the PAC report confirm the mistake in the 2010 F35 switch. It quotes 2012 MOD prices for the F35b & c at £65.5m v £59.9m. They seem a lot closer than I thought before, I wonder where the prices are now.

BBC News - Joint strike fighter decision was flawed, MPs say

I do think the F35b has the chance to really radically change the face of naval power, for countries that can have access to it.

I am a great fan of the Harrier, but in many ways it was unfair to compare it with other jets, as it was small/subsonic. The real reason it achieved a modest trickle of orders, was there was nothing else for most Navies. I think the RAF was the only land based operator.

The F35b is not only in a different league, the performance difference to most other aircraft is likely to be very marginal (if at all), and then it has a lot of benefits over them.

How cheaply could a Navy get into the F35b game (accepting the aircraft are anything but cheap). The TDC concept merged with the bulk of logistics/assault ships, creates a big lowish cost flight deck (JC1/ Cavour).

Many navies operated old RN Majestic/Colossus class carriers with fixed wing aircraft, but then abandoned them, as it just was not possible to operate a modern air group, either the type of aircraft or numbers.

For most countries in the West facing no real local threat and wanting to maintain an intervention capability, the F35b with something like the JCI/Cavour or maybe smaller makes more sense. Once the risk is gone and examples are in service, others might start to look at the F35b.

 

[kev 99]

How cheaply could a Navy get into the F35b game (accepting the aircraft are anything but cheap). The TDC concept merged with the bulk of logistics/assault ships, creates a big lowish cost flight deck (JC1/ Cavour).

Depends how cheaply you want to do it, you could almost certainly build a smaller carrier than Cavour with a smaller more limited airgroup and less space for avgas and munitions if all you wanted to do was a series of very limited airstrikes and then clear off again.

If you really wanted to do it cheaply you could do an Operation Corporate style ferry operation using an old tanker or container ship with an improvised hanger, it would be cheap and cheerful and you wouldn't be able to fly that many sorties off it and no real self respecting navy would even think about doing it, unless in the direst need/launching some sort of covert operation.

It would probably cost at least a £billion to get a group of half a dozen jets once you add in support contracts, infrastructure and other up front costs.

 

[John Fedup]

When the decision was made in 2010 to switch to the F-35C/cat-and-trap this decision was probably based both on cost concerns about the F-35B and its possible cancellation. Much progress has been made on the F-35B version so combined with the huge cost of cat-and-trap modifications to the QE carriers the decision to go back to the B-version seems to be best. Also, the F-35C has had its share of developmental problems too and its cost is indeed close to the B-version anyway. If the F-35B does what is promised perhaps more JSF partners should be considering this version.

 

[Volkodav]

With the F-35 looking more and more like the future standard western combat aircraft there will be many airforces operating the A model making the acquisition of the B model a cheaper proposition for them than say it would be for a country flying something other than the A in the airforce.

So you have a country flying the A model in their airforce for several years, their navy operating a large helicopter carrier or flat deck amphib. It would not be much of a stretch for them to buy a number of Bs to operate along side the As as well as practice ops off flat top they have in service while building a purpose designed carrier. Japan, South Korea and Australia come to mind.

All very long term and hypothetical mind you but where there is the political will probably not too hard.

 

[KiwiRob]

When searching the web there is still a lot of information for and against whether PoW will be commissioned or put immediately into reserve status or sold. Does any know what the truth of the matter is, or is it still all up in the air and nobody really knows.

 

[RobWilliams]

Up in the air, no official decision until 2015.

BUT, decision for the B over the C makes the operation of two much more likely & the DefSec is very keen on the carriers and their value for money (coming from a guy who was always labelled as being more about the spreadsheet than the capability). Not to mention it's a project both big parties are behind getting both carriers into service, so no political football here.

Basically, it's looking positive, we're certainly not seeing the ground being set up for one of them being binned that's for sure.

 

[Volkodav]

Up in the air, no official decision until 2015.

BUT, decision for the B over the C makes the operation of two much more likely & the DefSec is very keen on the carriers and their value for money (coming from a guy who was always labelled as being more about the spreadsheet than the capability). Not to mention it's a project both big parties are behind getting both carriers into service, so no political football here.

Basically, it's looking positive, we're certainly not seeing the ground being set up for one of them being binned that's for sure.

All you need is a couple of years of (relative) peace, i.e. no large UK deployments, and another John Nott and one of both carriers will be gone. Did some reading recently that suggested that but for the Falklands not only would invincible have been sold but there was a very real risk of Ark being cancelled and Lusty being broken up before completion.

Considering the Falklands experience I am surprised the UK didn't go through with the sale of Invincible to Australia, retain Hermes until able to replace her with an improved, larger (Hermes or Victorious sized) evolved Invincible before eventually settling on a fleet of two of the larger ships and two Invincibles (used as ASW and Commando) helicopter carriers that only deployed Sea Harriers when neither of the big carriers were available.