The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

At this point i'd actually be okay with giving the Ocean replacement contract to a foreign yard (their are a couple of decent designs floating about) if it meant it was cheap, it may not benefit British industry but then they're already booked up until T26 is finished thanks to the closure of so many yards, and we'd be more likely to get a replacement if it was cheaper.

We could always try and get some offsets out of France/Italy/Spain or whoever else ends up building it by getting them to buy something from our industry.

I am completely against building cheap bulky ships like LPH or RFAs, in foreign yards; the jobs argument is very strong compared to the cost of the effective subsidy and the PR damage to the RN could be significant. The jobs case is actually much poorer with some of the more expensive ships/systems. I would think a much better case for building SSBNs in France than LPHs in Spain (not that I am recommending either be built abroad)

 

[Troothsayer]

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see both strike carriers in commission and the MOD ordering the 70 or so F35's that they would require , those predicting this happy state of affairs occurring anytime soon may well need to obtain a more secure grip on the fundamentals of the UK's current (dire) financial situation .

All just my opinion of course .

Wasn't the idea to only have enough for one airwing anyway since only one would be acting as carrier at any given time?
I think people need to stop comparing these like for like with US carriers - the UK's needs are totally different and I think we'll see a very austere fast jet purchase to begin with and will end up with a variety of more helicopters on them than fast jets anyhow.

Considering most of our F35 purchase was scheduled post 2023 anyway - that's 13 years from now, i'd suggest that flying things off them should be the least of the RN's worries, getting them in service is priority.

 

[Grim901]

Would it not be better to soldier on with HMS Ocean or live without LPH capability for some time (the CVF will have losts of space) and then build the capability into the Albion/Bulwark replacements like the Mistral's. A pure LPH looks dated compared to JC 1/Camberra's/Mistrals, we will not get exports if we build old concepts.

Also should we not be trying to sell the best condition Invincible Class now, is there a market?

The more I think about it building more Harriers is not as silly as it sounds. I wonder how much it would cost per unit if we built 100-150, I am sure there would also be export potential.

Bold bits = hypocrite.

And actually some navies are against the idea of trying to make LPD/LPH hybrids because they lose capability in each area in order to fit both onto one ship, so it not an "old concept" just a different way of thinking.

And the best condition Invincible (Ark Royal) needs to stay in service until the CVFs come online, if you sell it we'd lose carrier capability entirely for a few years. And I doubt there is much of a market, due to lack of harriers to fly off them and lack of spare parts left for the class.

I am completely against building cheap bulky ships like LPH or RFAs, in foreign yards; the jobs argument is very strong compared to the cost of the effective subsidy and the PR damage to the RN could be significant. The jobs case is actually much poorer with some of the more expensive ships/systems. I would think a much better case for building SSBNs in France than LPHs in Spain (not that I am recommending either be built abroad)

So it'd be better to build a SSBN abroad than a cheap RFA that the general public is largely unaware of? And you think the PR ramifications would be?

RFA's are basically commercial vessels (some ARE ex-commercials) and they can be built abroad a LOT cheaper than here. And we need them fairly urgently and a noticeable LACK of space in British yards. So the choice is either spend a lot of money building them more expensively in a UK yard whos capacity will also have to be expanded, wait until a UK yard has space in 1 years as the fleet slowly becomes obsolete and useless, or go foreign and get a cheap ship when we need it. I know which one i'd rather have because 2 will be much more likely to lead to dead sailors/soldiers in a conflict (waiting and losing capability and wasting the shrinking defence budget on expensive ships).

Yes i'd rather see the ships built in the UK tomorrow, but the chances of that happening are slim. We have to choose what are willing to buy off the shelf (MOTS), because we can't do it ALL now. The DIS was a good thing but even that acknowledged our limitations now. RFA's aren't a key capability to manufacture, an SSBN is.

 

[1805]

Bold bits = hypocrite.

And actually some navies are against the idea of trying to make LPD/LPH hybrids because they lose capability in each area in order to fit both onto one ship, so it not an "old concept" just a different way of thinking.

And the best condition Invincible (Ark Royal) needs to stay in service until the CVFs come online, if you sell it we'd lose carrier capability entirely for a few years. And I doubt there is much of a market, due to lack of harriers to fly off them and lack of spare parts left for the class.



So it'd be better to build a SSBN abroad than a cheap RFA that the general public is largely unaware of? And you think the PR ramifications would be?

RFA's are basically commercial vessels (some ARE ex-commercials) and they can be built abroad a LOT cheaper than here. And we need them fairly urgently and a noticeable LACK of space in British yards. So the choice is either spend a lot of money building them more expensively in a UK yard whos capacity will also have to be expanded, wait until a UK yard has space in 1 years as the fleet slowly becomes obsolete and useless, or go foreign and get a cheap ship when we need it. I know which one i'd rather have because 2 will be much more likely to lead to dead sailors/soldiers in a conflict (waiting and losing capability and wasting the shrinking defence budget on expensive ships).

Yes i'd rather see the ships built in the UK tomorrow, but the chances of that happening are slim. We have to choose what are willing to buy off the shelf (MOTS), because we can't do it ALL now. The DIS was a good thing but even that acknowledged our limitations now. RFA's aren't a key capability to manufacture, an SSBN is.

Hypocrite is a bit strong, but I can see the contradiction, I think I would say the Harrier has something so unique even 40 years on, with update electronics it has real value. In the light attack role its limitations of speed/payload are mitigated and I would guess probably a third of the price of an F35b. I think a mix of 18-24 Harriers a similar number of F35b would be a cost effective complement for a CVF.

All ships are a balanced compromise, and most countries have to buy within their means, which makes ships like JCI/Mistral better propositions. The LHA-6 has been quoted as a LPH, which is an interesting debate, as I think they are much more. Actually I would have said 3, 25 knot (maybe CODAG) versions of the LHA-6, would have been a much better fit for the RN, than the CVFs and if sourced imaginatively would probably have been cheaper

If you read my original post I was not recommending buying SSBNs from France, merely giving it as an extreme example.

Talk of "dead soldiers/sailors" is just emotive nosense.

 

[Grim901]

Hypocrite is a bit strong, but I can see the contradiction, I think I would say the Harrier has something so unique even 40 years on, with update electronics it has real value. In the light attack role its limitations of speed/payload are mitigated and I would guess probably a third of the price of an F35b. I think a mix of 18-24 Harriers a similar number of F35b would be a cost effective complement for a CVF.

If you read my original post I was not recommending buying SSBNs from France, merely giving it as an extreme example.

Talk of "dead soldiers/sailors" is just emotive nosense.

Hypocrite wasn't intended to be strong, sorry. I wouldn't guess at anything when it comes to setting up an entirely new production line for an aircraft that has been out of production for some time. And how long would we really be using them for? They are essentially obsolete now, even if we update the electronics. If we are still talking about buying SOME F35's, we may as well just continue with the current purchase plan for F35's. Again, over half won't be purchased until post-2023.

And I wouldn't call it nonsense to talk about the repercussions of choosing one course of action over another. And dead servicemen is a real possibility if capabilities are lost, it can't simply be dismissed as nonsense.

 

[Moonstone]

As far as I'm aware the Mk 5B LCVP as carried by Ocean are not able to land vehicles because they are too small, additionally around half of their length is under cover which would make it impossible anyway, also there certainly does not appear to be any way of manoeuvring vehicles onto them anyway as they are suspended on davits.

CVF may not have the davits required for launching Mk 5bs but remember we're not talking about it being optimised for the assault role but able to act in this role, it's not quite the same thing.

As for an Invincible being operated in this role Ark royal did it during the Invasion of Iraq, that is the only time one of them has been required to undertake the role in a real operation.

Foolishly I had been laboring under the assumption that the 'V' in LCVP stood for 'Vehicle' . I understand that Ocean can indeed load heavy equipment and vehicles onto landing craft and/or Mexifloats over the stern ramp or via the ships heavy crane - features that the current CVF design appears to lack .

I've not said , and nor do I argue , that it would be impossible to operate a 'QE' as a LPH - I do say that I don't much like this idea for both economic and operational reasons and that the precedent set could be highly damaging to any future attempt to extend the service life (or build an appropriate replacement for) HMS Ocean .

With the Prince of Wales due to complete at much the same time as the Ocean is currently due to decommission the 'temporary' employment of the Prince of Wales as some stand-in LPH may prove to be not quite as temporary as the RN might wish .

An amphibious assault necessarily requires the attacking force to close on the potentially heavily defended coastal waters of the enemy , where said force could be subject to all manner of attack . Frankly the RN has shrunk to a critical mass now where its two major units can no longer be considered as expendable assets - a Queen Elizabeth Class carrier may just be much too valuable to expose to that level of risk .

 

[Hambo]

Let me see if I understand the last few comments:

We purchase two carriers at £2billion-a-piece, then our government decides to stretch the procurement at an extra £1billion, and now it is suggested that we store the second one for a rainy-day? £5billion for one active carrier; supplemented by an ancient HMS Ark Royal? :dodgy

Fluffythoughts, that £1billion is effectively gone, lost forever in the madness of government spending by people who are now in opposition and will never in our system be held accountable.
Hopefully we do get two carriers with a life of 50 years, so they should see several births and rebirths with aircraft types and refits.
QE or POW may for short times role as an LPH or more likely with a mixed airgroup, its really IMO just our big stick, so as long as they set sail on a fairly regular basis with a big airgroup then they should send out the message that the RN is not to be messed with. Stick 18 F35s on one, some merlins, Apaches and Chinooks and go on a world tour, show our friends and allies that we are still a force. I doubt very often two will sail together as strike carirers but the important thing is that should a conflict arise, we could do.

As to keeping as many hulls afloat and in reserve, I go on the basis politicians are halfwits, otherwise people like Lewis Page wouldnt gain an audience. The appearance of 2 carriers and 2 LPH, albeit one kept in marginal reserve might just con our leaders into getting used to the sight of four "carriers" at Portsmouth, possibly making a case for buildin two more in future in some key constituenceies. Our average politicians couldnt tell Ocean, from a Mistral, Invincible or nimitz, its ust a grey thing with a flat top. String out HMS Ocean but rather than send the Ark to the breakers for a pittance I would rather keep her, at least as a demonstration that somewhere down the line we could argue for two replacements. I suspect senior RN figures have argued that the QE's can act as an LPH as a bargaining tool to get them built, that has now become semi official policy, just as the RAF has rebranded Typhoon as multi role. In this era kit must be able to offer value for money, but you are correct, a £2billion carrier doesnt offer value if punted about with some marines and helos, but its probably what we will get with our politicians.
I am saddened to see perfectly good ships go, Eagle went too soon, Hermes has shown her 20 years of life with the Indians. I appreciate you cant man a technological dinosaur but the Ark is hardly that, The Ark couldnt race around for the next few decades as a strike carrier but it could with some TLC and some marginal cost be a decent security policy.
A similar example is our heavy armour and guns, I expect regiments to get cut. The challenger 2's and AS90's should in that case be mothballed in workable condition just in case, however more likely is that they will be sold off for a pound each as "foreign aid" . Lose a hull, airframe and tank in this day and age, its gone forever.

 

[1805]

Fluffythoughts, that £1billion is effectively gone, lost forever in the madness of government spending by people who are now in opposition and will never in our system be held accountable.
Hopefully we do get two carriers with a life of 50 years, so they should see several births and rebirths with aircraft types and refits.
QE or POW may for short times role as an LPH or more likely with a mixed airgroup, its really IMO just our big stick, so as long as they set sail on a fairly regular basis with a big airgroup then they should send out the message that the RN is not to be messed with. Stick 18 F35s on one, some merlins, Apaches and Chinooks and go on a world tour, show our friends and allies that we are still a force. I doubt very often two will sail together as strike carirers but the important thing is that should a conflict arise, we could do.

As to keeping as many hulls afloat and in reserve, I go on the basis politicians are halfwits, otherwise people like Lewis Page wouldnt gain an audience. The appearance of 2 carriers and 2 LPH, albeit one kept in marginal reserve might just con our leaders into getting used to the sight of four "carriers" at Portsmouth, possibly making a case for buildin two more in future in some key constituenceies. Our average politicians couldnt tell Ocean, from a Mistral, Invincible or nimitz, its ust a grey thing with a flat top. String out HMS Ocean but rather than send the Ark to the breakers for a pittance I would rather keep her, at least as a demonstration that somewhere down the line we could argue for two replacements. I suspect senior RN figures have argued that the QE's can act as an LPH as a bargaining tool to get them built, that has now become semi official policy, just as the RAF has rebranded Typhoon as multi role. In this era kit must be able to offer value for money, but you are correct, a £2billion carrier doesnt offer value if punted about with some marines and helos, but its probably what we will get with our politicians.
I am saddened to see perfectly good ships go, Eagle went too soon, Hermes has shown her 20 years of life with the Indians. I appreciate you cant man a technological dinosaur but the Ark is hardly that, The Ark couldnt race around for the next few decades as a strike carrier but it could with some TLC and some marginal cost be a decent security policy.
A similar example is our heavy armour and guns, I expect regiments to get cut. The challenger 2's and AS90's should in that case be mothballed in workable condition just in case, however more likely is that they will be sold off for a pound each as "foreign aid" . Lose a hull, airframe and tank in this day and age, its gone forever.

You are to dismissive of politicians, these people want to do their best. Sometimes the way you talk about them it’s almost as though you think they are paying for it themselves, this is tax payers’ money. Remember the military largely determine equipment they want, the cutting down comes when they have not been realistic in specification or the ordering timescales in relation to the budget available.

Was the £1bn over run the fault of the Labour Government or the Navy that ordered them to close together ? Yes with hi tech systems there will be cost increases, but then the Navy needs to build in contingencies.

It worries me that you have some of the largest most complex procurement projects in the UK and what qualification (experiences not necessarily formal qualification) has a naval officer to manage these effectively.

 

[harryriedl]

I am saddened to see perfectly good ships go, Eagle went too soon, Hermes has shown her 20 years of life with the Indians. I appreciate you cant man a technological dinosaur but the Ark is hardly that, The Ark couldnt race around for the next few decades as a strike carrier but it could with some TLC and some marginal cost be a decent security policy.
A similar example is our heavy armour and guns, I expect regiments to get cut. The challenger 2's and AS90's should in that case be mothballed in workable condition just in case, however more likely is that they will be sold off for a pound each as "foreign aid" . Lose a hull, airframe and tank in this day and age, its gone forever.

I'd like to see Ark around for a bit longer after both QE but considering next year is her 40th Birthday from launch. Launched in 1981 she is getting on a bit and she is very expensive if she going into an LPH role which can be done much cheaper than old Ark. I much prefer a new build a lengthen Ocean or BPE/Mistral/Cavour based design, with efficient manpower.

 

[StevoJH]

You are to dismissive of politicians, these people want to do their best. Sometimes the way you talk about them it’s almost as though you think they are paying for it themselves, this is tax payers’ money. Remember the military largely determine equipment they want, the cutting down comes when they have not been realistic in specification or the ordering timescales in relation to the budget available.

Was the £1bn over run the fault of the Labour Government or the Navy that ordered them to close together ? Yes with hi tech systems there will be cost increase, but then the Navy need to build in contingencies.

It worries me that you have some of the largest most complex procurement projects in the UK and what qualification (experiences not necessarily formal qualification) has a naval office to manage these effectively.

Don't blame just the military. All of these acquisions and their time tables had to be signed off on by the government. The CDF doesnt go up to the Defense Minister and say "Oh, by the way, i've just placed orders for this, this and this, can I have the money for it?"

In the case of the carriers, stretching out the build by a year or two *slightly* decreased the yearly cost of the program, but increased the total cost of the program by 25%. Financially it would have made sense (ie.cost less) to borrow money to finish the program on time, then paid off the loan from the following years budget. Even assuming 1 billion was borrowed, interest would have to be 100% p.a. for it to cost more then stretching the program out.

Its fudging the number pure and simple, and the people who came up with that method of accounting need to be shot. Its the same method that has led to the increase in PFI's in the UK as I understand it.

 

[1805]

Don't blame just the military. All of these acquisions and their time tables had to be signed off on by the government. The CDF doesnt go up to the Defense Minister and say "Oh, by the way, i've just placed orders for this, this and this, can I have the money for it?"

In the case of the carriers, stretching out the build by a year or two *slightly* decreased the yearly cost of the program, but increased the total cost of the program by 25%. Financially it would have made sense (ie.cost less) to borrow money to finish the program on time, then paid off the loan from the following years budget. Even assuming 1 billion was borrowed, interest would have to be 100% p.a. for it to cost more then stretching the program out.

Its fudging the number pure and simple, and the people who came up with that method of accounting need to be shot. Its the same method that has led to the increase in PFI's in the UK as I understand it.

I am not just blaming the military, but they must accept responsibility for a lot of it. Regarding the CVFs I haven't seen the contract, but as I understand the increase in cost was caused by the retrospective imposed delay, not because the work was over a longer period. The Astutes, T45, and CVFs construction could all have been scheduled over longer periods (after long delays to actually get into to the construction phase). This has cause huge budget problems and will eventually effect the ability to key yards busy over the lifecycle of the ships.

 

[Systems Adict]

...I am saddened to see perfectly good ships go, Eagle went too soon, Hermes has shown her 20 years of life with the Indians.

I appreciate you cant man a technological dinosaur but the Ark is hardly that, The Ark couldnt race around for the next few decades as a strike carrier but it could with some TLC and some marginal cost be a decent security policy.

I hate to say it, but we had 3 Invincible class carriers. 'Vince is in 'deep storage' (effectively she'll never go to see again, unless we spend about £50 - £100 M on her). Lusty is at sea, because of spares robbed from Vince & the Ark is only still going because she's had the least use (till now) out of all 3.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_class_aircraft_carrier"]Invincible class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:HMS_Invincible_(R05)_Norfolk.jpg" class="image" title="HMS Invincible (R05) visits Norfolk"><img alt="HMS Invincible (R05) visits Norfolk" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29_Norfolk.jpg/300px-HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29_Norfolk.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/5/51/HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29_Norfolk.jpg/300px-HMS_Invincible_%28R05%29_Norfolk.jpg[/ame]

The likelyhood is that we'll be left with just the Ark beyond 2014, until QE / PoW come on stream, putting more strain on Albion & Bulwark in the command & control role.


On the back of your comments about Eagle & Hermes, well part of the issue comes down to ability & support.

India, at the time she recieved Hermes, was able to fully run & support her, as most of her Navy was WW II relics & cast off's from many other nations, with little indigenious ships. In the last 25 years, she's systematically dragged her navy into the latter end of the 20th century, slowly replacing ships as time progressed, modernising as she goes, updating her shipbuild facilities & producing her own vessels.

She now has one of the largest navies across the globe & is still progressing the change to a 21st century navy, by upgrading older ships with new weapons systems & equipment, at a pace that suits her economy & growing capability. I'm also sure that if a similar ship to Hermes was on offer right now, she'd bite the hand off of the country that was offering it !

We (the UK, have always went down the road of replacing & redesigning 'the wheel' every 15 - 20 years. We now consider ships like Ark & Lusty, as dinosaurs.

Why ?

Because we have tecnologically advanced in such a way that we cannot support equipment that's 20 - 25 years old, as we don't have the parts, don't have the money to start reproducing the parts & don't have a technological facility / technological knowledge within our armed forces to maintain these parts.

We have out grown our roots & moved on. This become all apparent when we look at things like coal / steel & other heavy industries. In 1979 we had about 150 - 200 coal mines producing coal across the country, feeding about 50 steel mills & demand for domestic fossil fuels.

In 2010, we're lucky if we've got 5 - 10 active coal mines & our steel mills are all but closed.

We are therfore driven to continue head-long down the route we're going, until 'an event of historical importance' hits our nation & makes as 'think outside the box'.

...A similar example is our heavy armour and guns, I expect regiments to get cut. The challenger 2's and AS90's should in that case be mothballed in workable condition just in case, however more likely is that they will be sold off for a pound each as "foreign aid" . Lose a hull, airframe and tank in this day and age, its gone forever.

We have nationally, shot ourselves in the foot many times doing just that.

#1 govt decides to spend money designing & developing a 'weapons system'. 4 years go by until an election takes place & #1 govt becomes the opposition, leaving #2 govt to come in & kill the development of said system, to save money.

Don't believe me ? Have a look at the TSR 2 fiasco.

BAC TSR-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It maybe 50 years ago, but If Mr Cameron & his cronies don't get their acts together, CVF (ship 02) / Trident replacement / Type 26 could go the same way as CVA...

SA :gun

 

[Troothsayer]

In the latest interview with Liam Fox in the Times, he's ruling nothing out from the cuts
Troops could be cut as Fox sharpens his axe - Times Online

He still seems to be very Navy orientated though.

Fox refused to say which equipment programmes would be axed, but he offered some broad hints. There was good news for the Royal Navy, with Fox suggesting the number of ships had already been cut too much. “We’re going to have an increased maritime role because if you look at issues like energy security and piracy, that’s already pushing us in one direction,” he said.

The RAF is likely to have fewer fast jets designed to challenge Russian bombers over the North Sea, but more helicopters for moving troops and equipment in Afghanistan.

Posing the key questions for the review, Fox said: “Have we cut the surface fleets too much in order to buy high-end capability? In terms of the air force, have we previously concentrated too much on fast jets compared to lift capability?”

 

[1805]

I hate to say it, but we had 3 Invincible class carriers. 'Vince is in 'deep storage' (effectively she'll never go to see again, unless we spend about £50 - £100 M on her). Lusty is at sea, because of spares robbed from Vince & the Ark is only still going because she's had the least use (till now) out of all 3.

Invincible class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The likelyhood is that we'll be left with just the Ark beyond 2014, until QE / PoW come on stream, putting more strain on Albion & Bulwark in the command & control role.


On the back of your comments about Eagle & Hermes, well part of the issue comes down to ability & support.

India, at the time she recieved Hermes, was able to fully run & support her, as most of her Navy was WW II relics & cast off's from many other nations, with little indigenious ships. In the last 25 years, she's systematically dragged her navy into the latter end of the 20th century, slowly replacing ships as time progressed, modernising as she goes, updating her shipbuild facilities & producing her own vessels.

She now has one of the largest navies across the globe & is still progressing the change to a 21st century navy, by upgrading older ships with new weapons systems & equipment, at a pace that suits her economy & growing capability. I'm also sure that if a similar ship to Hermes was on offer right now, she'd bite the hand off of the country that was offering it !

We (the UK, have always went down the road of replacing & redesigning 'the wheel' every 15 - 20 years. We now consider ships like Ark & Lusty, as dinosaurs.

Why ?

Because we have tecnologically advanced in such a way that we cannot support equipment that's 20 - 25 years old, as we don't have the parts, don't have the money to start reproducing the parts & don't have a technological facility / technological knowledge within our armed forces to maintain these parts.

We have out grown our roots & moved on. This become all apparent when we look at things like coal / steel & other heavy industries. In 1979 we had about 150 - 200 coal mines producing coal across the country, feeding about 50 steel mills & demand for domestic fossil fuels.

In 2010, we're lucky if we've got 5 - 10 active coal mines & our steel mills are all but closed.

We are therfore driven to continue head-long down the route we're going, until 'an event of historical importance' hits our nation & makes as 'think outside the box'.

What are you going on about, this makes no sense at all?


We have nationally, shot ourselves in the foot many times doing just that.

#1 govt decides to spend money designing & developing a 'weapons system'. 4 years go by until an election takes place & #1 govt becomes the opposition, leaving #2 govt to come in & kill the development of said system, to save money.

Don't believe me ? Have a look at the TSR 2 fiasco.

BAC TSR-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It maybe 50 years ago, but If Mr Cameron & his cronies don't get their acts together, CVF (ship 02) / Trident replacement / Type 26 could go the same way as CVA...

SA :gun

I would question the value of the TSR2 over CVA 01. The madness of the politicans was having cancelled the TSR2 and making the RAF accept Buccaneers (quite rightly) they let the RAF resurrect the same requirement in the Tornado.

 

[StevoJH]

I would question the value of the TSR2 over CVA 01. The madness of the politicans was having cancelled the TSR2 and making the RAF accept Buccaneers (quite rightly) they let the RAF resurrect the same requirement in the Tornado.

Not exactly.

As I understand it,

CVA-01 was cancelled because the RAF made the case that they could provide the same coverage with TSR2 (they somehow moved Australia west a few thousand kilometres to do it).

TSR2 was then cancelled in favour of an F-111 purchase, which was then itself cancelled.

Buccaneer's were then transferred to the RAF as the RN carriers they were based on were decommisioned one by one.

The Bucccaneers were then replaced in RAF service by the Tornado's. The tornado's were purchased to carry out the same tactical bomber role that the buccaneers carried out.

 

[1805]

Not exactly.

As I understand it,

CVA-01 was cancelled because the RAF made the case that they could provide the same coverage with TSR2 (they somehow moved Australia west a few thousand kilometres to do it).

TSR2 was then cancelled in favour of an F-111 purchase, which was then itself cancelled.

Buccaneer's were then transferred to the RAF as the RN carriers they were based on were decommisioned one by one.

The Bucccaneers were then replaced in RAF service by the Tornado's. The tornado's were purchased to carry out the same tactical bomber role that the buccaneers carried out.

Not exactly, the Buccaneer was offered to the RAF for their requirement, which they rejected at the time, even though it was said 5 Buccs could be brought for a single TSR2.

When the TSR2 was cancelled the RAF reluctantly brought their own Buccs, but these were later added to with FAA aircraft after the demise of the Eagle, Ark & Hermes (can you believe Buccs operated off the 28,000t Hermes)

However as soon as they could the RAF resurrected the TSR2 requirement in the Tornado (at great cost) in their obsession with flying low and fast (RAF had the highest death rate in training v Luftwaffe & Aeronautica Militare on Tornados) despite all the evidence of Vietnam and the need to use standoff and guided munitions. This continued until GW1 when the Americans asked the RAF to stop low level attacks, as RAFs casualties were embarrassing the Coalition, at which point Buccs were brought in to save the day......

As a bi product of this farce the RAF went without a proper Fighter for 30 years!

 

[Systems Adict]

I hate to say it, but we had 3 Invincible class carriers. 'Vince is in 'deep storage' (effectively she'll never go to see again, unless we spend about £50 - £100 M on her). Lusty is at sea, because of spares robbed from Vince & the Ark is only still going because she's had the least use (till now) out of all 3.

Invincible class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the back of your comments about Eagle & Hermes, well part of the issue comes down to ability & support.

India, at the time she recieved Hermes, was able to fully run & support her, as most of her Navy was WW II relics & cast off's from many other nations, with little indigenious ships. In the last 25 years, she's systematically dragged her navy into the latter end of the 20th century, slowly replacing ships as time progressed, modernising as she goes, updating her shipbuild facilities & producing her own vessels.

She now has one of the largest navies across the globe & is still progressing the change to a 21st century navy, by upgrading older ships with new weapons systems & equipment, at a pace that suits her economy & growing capability. I'm also sure that if a similar ship to Hermes was on offer right now, she'd bite the hand off of the country that was offering it !

We (the UK, have always went down the road of replacing & redesigning 'the wheel' every 15 - 20 years. We now consider ships like Ark & Lusty, as dinosaurs.

Why ?

Because we have tecnologically advanced in such a way that we cannot support equipment that's 20 - 25 years old, as we don't have the parts, don't have the money to start reproducing the parts & don't have a technological facility / technological knowledge within our armed forces to maintain these parts.

We have out grown our roots & moved on. This become all apparent when we look at things like coal / steel & other heavy industries. In 1979 we had about 150 - 200 coal mines producing coal across the country, feeding about 50 steel mills & demand for domestic fossil fuels.

In 2010, we're lucky if we've got 5 - 10 active coal mines & our steel mills are all but closed.

We are therfore driven to continue head-long down the route we're going, until 'an event of historical importance' hits our nation & makes as 'think outside the box'.

So 1805, you've no idea wot i'm talking about ?

Can you tell me, in mainland Europe, how many companies you've dealt with that have any CURRENT experience in tripple expansion steam boilers, or coal fired ships ?

Then again, how many companies have had any history of using such equipment, never mind the current experience ?

Now look at India as a continent. In the whole, how far behind Western Europe was she in 1983, when Hermes was sold / given to her ??

Technologically, at that time, she COULD (& probably still can), either obtain the parts off the shelf, or manufacture them within a short period of time.

...The same is true for Ark & Lusty, at this time (in the UK / Western Europe), who actually stock parts for their engines / gearboxes / lube oil systems ??

Yes, given the plans / drawings, we COULD probably manufacture parts, but is it worth it ??

Only an event, such as the Falklands would drive us as a nation to get our 'shit-in-one-sock', to make the decision to make parts, or design equipment to answer the call ; 'an event of historical importance' .

The only time we seem to learn, is in the from the mistakes that are paid for by the blood of our Armed Services.

After all, History has taught us that WAR (not necessity), is the mother-of-invention.

SA

 

[1805]

So 1805, you've no idea wot i'm talking about ?

Can you tell me, in mainland Europe, how many companies you've dealt with that have any CURRENT experience in tripple expansion steam boilers, or coal fired ships ?

Then again, how many companies have had any history of using such equipment, never mind the current experience ?

Now look at India as a continent. In the whole, how far behind Western Europe was she in 1983, when Hermes was sold / given to her ??

Technologically, at that time, she COULD (& probably still can), either obtain the parts off the shelf, or manufacture them within a short period of time.

...The same is true for Ark & Lusty, at this time (in the UK / Western Europe), who actually stock parts for their engines / gearboxes / lube oil systems ??

Yes, given the plans / drawings, we COULD probably manufacture parts, but is it worth it ??

Only an event, such as the Falklands would drive us as a nation to get our 'shit-in-one-sock', to make the decision to make parts, or design equipment to answer the call ; 'an event of historical importance' .

The only time we seem to learn, is in the from the mistakes that are paid for by the blood of our Armed Services.

After all, History has taught us that WAR (not necessity), is the mother-of-invention.

SA

Well that’s not exactly what you said you were talking about coal mine/stuff and there is still not much sense in what you’re saying.

I certainly don't think you would find any coal fired ships in RN or Indian service for 70 years and why would you want them, the RN started to move over from before WWI or triple expansion machinery (not boilers I assume?) as apart from wartime necessity when Corvettes/Frigates reverted to triple expansion, for easy of production/use with largely merchant crews.

Hermes had Parson steam turbines. India operated some steam turbine ships for some time but these would have had no common part with Hermes engines. If we had kept Hermes we would have maintained the capability.

We didn't keep the Ark/Eagle/Hermes in the conventional carrier role as these ships were not well suited to operate fast heavy jet, and struggled almost from the beginning (lifts/hangers etc, it’s a mistaken view it was size). Hermes ultimate demise was as driven by a desire to move away from heavy fuel oil (not coal....!!), this also helped the early exit of the Countys/Leanders.

If we wanted to keep the Invincible and the engines were the problem, we could re-engine (diesel or GTs), but it would not be cost effective. Particularly as the CVF will have plenty of deck space and we have seen a big increase in the assault capability with Albions/Bays.

BTW we do have steam turbine technology SSN have them. I do however agree that wartime experience creates some of the best designs (Lochs/A10 etc) and in peace time the military forget the lessons. I don't think many RN designs would be built in a war.

 

[StevoJH]

Well that’s not exactly what you said you were talking about coal mine/stuff and there is still not much sense in what you’re saying.

He's talking about powerplants. Doesnt the UK still have Coal fired powerplants? But rather then mining their own coal they import it now?

I certainly don't think you would find any coal fired ships in RN or Indian service for 70 years and why would you want them, the RN started to move over from before WWI or triple expansion machinery (not boilers I assume?) as apart from wartime necessity when Corvettes/Frigates reverted to triple expansion, for easy of production/use with largely merchant crews.

What are you going on about. Steam engines are steam engines, both have boilers. Whether they are Turbine or Triple Expansion its just a different method of converting that heat energy into motive power.

Hermes had Parson steam turbines. India operated some steam turbine ships for some time but these would have had no common part with Hermes engines. If we had kept Hermes we would have maintained the capability.

The RN's last *conventional* Steam turbine ships were the leander class and Fearless class. These all dated from the 1960's though, and by the time they were removed from service, many of the companies that originally made many of their parts would have been out of business for many years. Any parts would need to be manufactured to order from the plans.

We didn't keep the Ark/Eagle/Hermes in the conventional carrier role as these ships were not well suited to operate fast heavy jet, and struggled almost from the beginning (lifts/hangers etc, it’s a mistaken view it was size). Hermes ultimate demise was as driven by a desire to move away from heavy fuel oil (not coal....!!), this also helped the early exit of the Countys/Leanders.

Ark and Eagle were big enough to operate F-4, Buccaneer and presumably F/A-18A. Eagle was retired early due to budget cuts, Ark Royal because she was old.

Hermes was retired because she was old (26 years in service in 1985).

The Counties were retired because Sea Slug was obsolete and it was cheaper to replace them with T42 then to upgrade old ships with Sea Dart. Leanders were all 20-30 years old when retired, they were removed from service due to age.

If we wanted to keep the Invincible and the engines were the problem, we could re-engine (diesel or GTs), but it would not be cost effective. Particularly as the CVF will have plenty of deck space and we have seen a big increase in the assault capability with Albions/Bays.

What? The invincible class are old, they require a large crew and as they get older, more and more components will fail. It gets to the point that its just easier to replace them then to maintain them in service.

BTW we do have steam turbine technology SSN have them. I do however agree that wartime experience creates some of the best designs (Lochs/A10 etc) and in peace time the military forget the lessons. I don't think many RN designs would be built in a war.

SSN steam system is very different to an oil fired system. Wouldn't be surprised if industrial oil fired steam plants were still in production in the UK somewhere though.

As for RN designs produced in a war. T23 could probably be produced during a war. An enlarged Clyde class with a hanger could be produced, a simplified T45 could probably be produced. RFA's are just commercial ships and could be produced in quantity. Flat top ships like HMS Ocean should be able to be rapidly produced compared to a full invincible class.

 

[1805]

He's talking about powerplants. Doesnt the UK still have Coal fired powerplants? But rather then mining their own coal they import it now?

What are you going on about. Steam engines are steam engines, both have boilers. Whether they are Turbine or Triple Expansion its just a different method of converting that heat energy into motive power.

The RN's last *conventional* Steam turbine ships were the leander class and Fearless class. These all dated from the 1960's though, and by the time they were removed from service, many of the companies that originally made many of their parts would have been out of business for many years. Any parts would need to be manufactured to order from the plans.

I didn't see the relevant of coal or tripe expansion to maintaining HMS Hermes as she has neither.I was saying we could operate stream if we wanted to but we didn't want to.
I believe he was arguing we don't have the capability.

Ark and Eagle were big enough to operate F-4, Buccaneer and presumably F/A-18A. Eagle was retired early due to budget cuts, Ark Royal because she was old.

Hermes was retired because she was old (26 years in service in 1985).

The debate was Hermes has served another 25 years so not that old? (I was not recommending keeping her). Ark/Eagle/Hermes were dated from the start and needed a number of heavy refits, aircaft needed to fold like paper models! These ships are actually peers in launch dates not design with the Forrestals

The Counties were retired because Sea Slug was obsolete and it was cheaper to replace them with T42 then to upgrade old ships with Sea Dart. Leanders were all 20-30 years old when retired, they were removed from service due to age.

Some later leanders did less than 20 years 16-17 years. Counties had heavy crews and the steam plants speeded exit. Some could have been given much more worthwhile refits than the Leanders.

What? The invincible class are old, they require a large crew and as they get older, more and more components will fail. It gets to the point that its just easier to replace them then to maintain them in service.

Thats what I was saying, but I was pointing out they could be re engined if it was desired (QE2 had same engines and went diesel)


SSN steam system is very different to an oil fired system. Wouldn't be surprised if industrial oil fired steam plants were still in production in the UK somewhere though.

I was pointing out we do have steam technology and yes you right we have powerstation. I thing he was saying we didn't. On your point steam is steam, I would agree hence the SSN reference

As for RN designs produced in a war. T23 could probably be produced during a war.
An enlarged Clyde class with a hanger could be produced, a simplified T45 could probably be produced. RFA's are just commercial ships and could be produced in quantity. Flat top ships like HMS Ocean should be able to be rapidly produced compared to a full invincible class.

I would say the T23 was built with wartime experience, particularly the longer range which had been shown up in he Falklands. I am not sure I would agree with the CVF/T45 (probably more like a F100). However the Ocean does similarities with the Majestic/Colossus class yes.