The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Systems Adict]

Back to the Naval Topic...

Saw this link & thought I'd bring the part about talking about ships & the Royal Navy back to the table....... :

Carrier block unveiled at Clyde shipyard - BAE Systems

SA

 

[StingrayOZ]

They will be impressive ships, an impressive build, but that article from Bae states 12 F-35's. Doesn't seem cost effective.

 

[WillS]

They will be impressive ships, an impressive build, but that article from Bae states 12 F-35's. Doesn't seem cost effective.

"will operate 12 ..." and remember we're still at the 'dreaming about buying' stage when it comes to the jets. They'll be lucky to get a regular carrier wing of 12. Try 10, or 8.

I really don't understand the F35 buy in military terms. F18s can do the job, we know how much they cost to buy and operate and we could afford decent quantities for a fraction of the F35 cost. Not that we actually know what the real cost of a F35 is. The F35 decision seems to me to be understandable only in defence-industry terms.

Once again the defence budget priorities appear to be:

1. Prop up industrial policy
2. Provide kit in useful quantities if it doesn't conflict with 1.

when it should be the other way around.

WillS

 

[StobieWan]

They will be impressive ships, an impressive build, but that article from Bae states 12 F-35's. Doesn't seem cost effective.

That's based on a projected buy of 40 in total - the carriers are expected to serve for 50 years and the production line for F35 will be open for another couple of decades - there's hope for the future is what I'm saying.

Ian

 

[Hambo]

"will operate 12 ..." and remember we're still at the 'dreaming about buying' stage when it comes to the jets. They'll be lucky to get a regular carrier wing of 12. Try 10, or 8.

I really don't understand the F35 buy in military terms. F18s can do the job, we know how much they cost to buy and operate and we could afford decent quantities for a fraction of the F35 cost. Not that we actually know what the real cost of a F35 is. The F35 decision seems to me to be understandable only in defence-industry terms.

Once again the defence budget priorities appear to be:

1. Prop up industrial policy
2. Provide kit in useful quantities if it doesn't conflict with 1.

when it should be the other way around.

WillS

But doesn't F35 offer something that the UK currently lacks, meaning stealth capability. The Libyan conflict, ignoring if we should be there or not, relied, despite the European (UK and France) on US "special capabilities" ie stealth and EW.

Ignoring the Falklands factor and assuming we have host nation support, then for many missions the UK can deal with threats via typhoon, Voyager etc etc, but a real tough nut, should we need to either requires US support or our own LO aircraft.

Is the cost difference really that great? especially as Russia and China will in 20 years be pumping out stealthy aircraft onto the arms market. I just think F35 is so far ahead of what we have now we would be foolish to turn away from it, I assume F18 with all the add ons cost £80m, F35 might come in at £100m but will be in production much longer. We have zero work share on F18, and the thought of RAF Typhoons trouncing FAA F18's in mock dogfights seems to me a bad PR hit for the RN.

 

[riksavage]

8-12 during peace time is probably about right considering the vessel will have to operate as a hybrid commando carrier. Add a possible 4+ Apache (attack), 4+ Wildcat (recon) and 8 Merlin for troop transport and the deck will still look pretty busy.

The UK needs F35C, it represents a significant leap over Typhoon and the F18 stealth wise. And like others have said the initial batch might be small, but as finances improve there's nothing stopping the Gov from buying follow-up batches. With such a large pool of aircraft globally if the sh*t hits the fan and the UK has to go it alone then there may be options to lease airframes from the US to boost numbers in the short term.

I doubt we will see more than three operational sqns (1 x FAA, 2 x RAF) if the decision to keep only one carrier active at any one time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What sort of mission does the UK hope to enable with 6-12 F-35's? Seems like barely enough to train with.

The RAF isn't even operating fighters or other aircraft that will be able to use the carrier. It seems like there really isn't a move for the UK forces to intergrate and work together. So the UK ends up with some capable equipment but not in a way that works cohesively.

I don't know how flexable the USN is going to be about people borrowing airframes in the short and medium term. Its hardly going to be rolling around in F-35c's for a while yet, and I would imagine it will be a big effort to get pilots trained, engineers trained, etc and will need everything they can get. Most of the USN is going to be F-18 for a long time to come and they arent going to be that useful for the RN.

 

[StobieWan]

What sort of mission does the UK hope to enable with 6-12 F-35's? Seems like barely enough to train with.

The RAF isn't even operating fighters or other aircraft that will be able to use the carrier. It seems like there really isn't a move for the UK forces to intergrate and work together. So the UK ends up with some capable equipment but not in a way that works cohesively.

I don't know how flexable the USN is going to be about people borrowing airframes in the short and medium term. Its hardly going to be rolling around in F-35c's for a while yet, and I would imagine it will be a big effort to get pilots trained, engineers trained, etc and will need everything they can get. Most of the USN is going to be F-18 for a long time to come and they arent going to be that useful for the RN.

:sigh:


The RAF and FAA are buying a common airframe so any of the RAF jets could fly from the carriers. It's F35C all the way.

We're buying 40 as of now. That'll be enough to train with, generate a standing force of a dozen embarked and in a shooting match, we can probably squeeze double that number out of the cabs available. That's about as many airframes as we fought the Falklands war with and all are vastly more capable than anything we currently have and much better than any current or projected adversary will have on a per jet basis.


You could kick in the front door of any 3rd, most 2nd and one or two first world nations with that lot.

Hopefully we'll get more, ideally enough to stand up a decent strength on land with the RAF and at sea with the FAA. At the moment, we're broke, so we're doing the best with what we can afford right now. The carriers are intended to be in service for fifty years, and the production line will be open another couple of decades. Ideally over the next decade or so, we'll see more aircraft.


Ian

 

[StingrayOZ]

So is the UK expecting to be able to operate with out the USN/USMC on a kick the door down operaiton? Just curious? Or is it more at this stage to just get the carriers, training, and partnership missions?

An as part of an amphibious group I would imagine its ability to carry fighters would be more limited than a pure carrier. A wasp is simular in size however carries very few harriers when operating as an regular amphib.

Im just curious to how the numbers came about. Is it completely budget driven or is there a minium capablity they are trying to establish?

I would imagine french fighters and assets (hawkeye?) would be avalible at times until the french get another carrier. I would assume they are far more avalible than the USN.

My intention isn't to bag the RN/FAA/RAF out just figure out why.

The RAF and FAA are buying a common airframe so any of the RAF jets could fly from the carriers. It's F35C all the way.

Ok, I had kinda thought the RAF had gone F-35A to save money or was getting out of the F-35 business (leaving it to the FAA).

I suppose the good news is you will still be way way more capable than you are now.

 

[swerve]

Ok, I had kinda thought the RAF had gone F-35A to save money or was getting out of the F-35 business (leaving it to the FAA).

The plan is, as it always has been, for the RAF to have exactly the same version of F-35 as the RN. The only change is which carrier-capable version will be bought.

Why do you say CVF is a similar size to the Wasp class? As well as being over 50% heavier, CVF has an much larger (& angled) flight deck in proportion to the size of the ship. Wasp has space & weight taken up by a dock, & vehicle deck - CVF has neither. Wasp is built to house 1900 marines in addition to the crew: CVF has no dedicated accommodation for troops, as far as I can discover.

One is a dedicated amphibious assault ship with a secondary capacity to operate STOVL fighters. The other is a full-on cat & trap aircraft carrier which can (as can any carrier) operate in a secondary amphibious role if required. She ain't going to be carting around lots of ground troops unless there's an urgent need to transport more of them somewhere than the real amphibs can carry, and no fighter cover is needed, or unless both carriers are available & one can be used as an LPH.

There is nothing in any of the material published by the RN or MoD, or in any public statement, to suggest that the carriers will operate as some kind of hybrid carrier/amphib. They may, depending on needs from time to time, carry attack or assault helicopters as part of their air group. They aren't limited compared to pure aircraft carriers; they are pure aircraft carriers.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sorry Swerve, I may have missed a whole bunch of very obvious information somewhere in this thread.

Why do you say CVF is a similar size to the Wasp class?

Well broadly simular. The american carriers are 45% bigger again so it sits somewhat between them.. Perhaps I should have said USS america. Which has no dock but still has significant amphibious capability. However yours is most definately a fixed wing carrier first.

8-12 during peace time is probably about right considering the vessel will have to operate as a hybrid commando carrier. Add a possible 4+ Apache (attack), 4+ Wildcat (recon) and 8 Merlin for troop transport and the deck will still look pretty busy.

So is it going to have perform the commando carrier role? Im just a bit confused. There was talk of having one fitted as a helo carrier with out cats? Yes? No?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Sorry Swerve, I may have missed a whole bunch of very obvious information somewhere in this thread.



Well broadly simular. The american carriers are 45% bigger again so it sits somewhat between them.. Perhaps I should have said USS america. Which has no dock but still has significant amphibious capability. However yours is most definately a fixed wing carrier first.



So is it going to have perform the commando carrier role? Im just a bit confused. There was talk of having one fitted as a helo carrier with out cats? Yes? No?

This is my understanding. At this stage the UK Government plans to have one Carrier fitted with Cats & Traps and the other is to be stationed at restricted availability or similar term. There has been speculation that one Carrier the P.O.W. most likely could be used as a Amphib/Commando Carrier if no replacement for the Ocean is purchased, the Ocean is due for replacement at approximately that time.

However I find speculation about the economic and strategic environment in 2020 kind of funny, a lot can change in the next 8 years I think it will. I wouldn't bet on both Carriers not receiving full CTOL gear.

Thats my read of the situation anyway for what its worth.

 

[riksavage]

Sorry Swerve, I may have missed a whole bunch of very obvious information somewhere in this thread.



Well broadly simular. The american carriers are 45% bigger again so it sits somewhat between them.. Perhaps I should have said USS america. Which has no dock but still has significant amphibious capability. However yours is most definately a fixed wing carrier first.



So is it going to have perform the commando carrier role? Im just a bit confused. There was talk of having one fitted as a helo carrier with out cats? Yes? No?

My personal view is that Ocean will not be replaced and the UK will end up with 1 x active Albion, 1 x active QE with 1 or 2 Bays in tow. The active QE will be forced to act as a hybrid - carrying CAS, CAP and lift for the accompanying commandos in the Albion/Bay. So to ensure full year round coverage both the QE & POW will be fitted with cats and traps by the time F35C sqns become fully operational. This may mean the QE sails fitted for but not with, however once the POW comes on-line and the F35C’s become fully deployable the QE will be fitted out and kept in reserve.

F35C purchases will be reduced and I can’t see the QE carrying much more than the typical number of fixed wing seen aboard a US Wasp class. The UK will have to re-write its operational doctrine to allow for a mix of rotary and non-STOVL fixed wing deploying from the same vessel. For example F35C’s launched in the first wave followed by Merlin cross decking to the Albion’s/Bays to lift the commando sticks escorted by Apache (attack role) and Wildcat providing recon / FOO support

 

[swerve]

We're suffering from the decision to build Ocean to a low standard to save money, & Albion & Bulwark with no hangars. We don't have anything to carry helicopters which is both cheap to operate & is going to last a long time without spending a lot of money. Ocean is wearing out fast, & Illustrious & the now retired Ark Royal are old, & expensive to operate, needing bigger crews, guzzling more fuel, etc.

The French decision to build LHDs looks more & more sensible. In hindsight, two LHDs instead of the LPDs & Ocean, plus the Bay LSDs for heavy lift, would now put us in a much better situation.

The MoD - and most definitely Liam Fox, the minister - wants to complete both QEs as fully-fitted carriers, to provide one operational carrier at all times*.

But because of past decisions, we have a problem with helicopter lift for amphibious operations. Where we don't need to provide significant fast jet cover, that can be provided by a QE. If we ever need jets and helicopter lift, we'll have to send both QEs, if we can - or persuade the Treasury to see sense & fund either a thorough rebuild for Ocean, or a new (austere, diesel) helicopter carrier.

Operating the QEs with no more than half a dozen F-35C would make a mockery of having them. They'd be a worldwide standing joke.

*The treasury doesn't like that idea, because of the cost. But the treasury doesn't really like the idea of armed forces, or anything else that costs money.

 

[welsh1]

the problem with the RN atm is there is too much needs currently.


come 2020 its easier to look at what we do not need to replace that what we do.

we will have 2 aircraft carriers, 7 ssn's, 6 AA destroyers, 2 LPD's, 3 LSD's. that don't need replacing ASAP.

with the changes in the MOD the RN are ment to have more control of purchasing and planning for the future from what i can understand. As the reality of the current fleet reduction sets in and loss of capabilities, i wonder where the RN will see it needs to allocate funds.

another twist may well be the apparent change in the role the US see's for its self in the world. If the US no longer see's itself as the global policeman and is unwilling to get troops on the ground in future conflicts, the role of the RN in Libya style conflicts may be how we enforce foreign policy in the future. i think that if we had the capacity/ability to help the rebels in Syria we would be there. If more conflicts such as these continue to pop up then it will show that more needs to be invested in the RN and what capabilities are needed to enforce foreign policy.

As stated previously the French seem to have done better with their purchases of LPH's over LPD's, also the need to have both carriers fitted with cats and traps is a must as will become more apparent over the years to come.

i believe that ironically what may be the biggest savior of the RN are
-the RN cuts helping to highlight the problems the navy is facing
-the change in America's global stance which directly affects how we will be doing in the future i.e supporting factions as oppose to getting feet on the ground.
- the limitations of the navy being highlighted in Libya ( both in ability to maintain a presence and capability of the ships we are able to deploy),
-the inability to even consider helping in Syria which is getting more pressing by the day
-lack of friendly basing for operations for the RAF and the limitations and costs even when we have it such as in Italy currently.

What the government must learn from the changing times is that now more than any time since the Falklands it needs a capable navy, if it intends to continue to enforce foreign policy and remain a global player. When current deployments come to an end hopefully the government will allocate some funds for some extra ships to fill in the gaps where the RN sees it best placed and potentially increase the numbers of some other area's as a result of increasing importance of the navy, even at the cost of the RAF and Army.

 

[Seaforth]

We're suffering from the decision to build Ocean to a low standard to save money, & Albion & Bulwark with no hangars.

Operating the QEs with no more than half a dozen F-35C would make a mockery of having them. They'd be a worldwide standing joke.

The decisions that took us to a point where we had 3 Invincibles, 1 Ocean, 2 Albions, 4 Bays and a bunch of Point RoRos were fine. That's a well balanced force.

The problem is the way the transition to 2 QEs is being managed. Which is the gap between Harrier and F35C.

Regarding a QE with 6 F-35C's being a joke, it all depends on what the task is.

The QEs will be used as floating airfields not as strike carriers.

If the task at hand means 6 F35Cs plus a broad force of helicopters including Chinooks, EH101, some kind of ASAC, Apache and Wildcats, then so be it.

On the other hand if the task requires 24 F35Cs plus EH101 and ASAC then if that's possible from time to time then fine. That would be an air group with more capability than most air forces.

The QEs are not going to have a standing air group like the US carriers.

UK carriers have been deployed with flexible air groups for a long time now.

I agree that QE will initially be helicopter only, and PoW will be the first to operationally deploy cats and traps. Simply put, QE will be available long before the F35Cs, so QE may not even be be built with cats and traps. QE may get them later, once PoW is deployed.

In fact when you think about it, the UK has deployed aircraft carriers with air force numbers to boost core fleet air arm numbers since 1982 reasonably effectively, unlike any other country, and very efficiently. It actually seems to work in its own way...

 

[swerve]

The decisions that took us to a point where we had 3 Invincibles, 1 Ocean, 2 Albions, 4 Bays and a bunch of Point RoRos were fine. That's a well balanced force.

The problem is the way the transition to 2 QEs is being managed. Which is the gap between Harrier and F35C.

I agree, it was a well-balanced force, & the decisions were rational at the time. That's why I said in hindsight. If we'd taken different decisions back then, it would be easier to manage the transition now, & we'd be better set up for 2020 & beyond.

Regarding a QE with 6 F-35C's being a joke, it all depends on what the task is.

The QEs will be used as floating airfields not as strike carriers.

If the task at hand means 6 F35Cs plus a broad force of helicopters including Chinooks, EH101, some kind of ASAC, Apache and Wildcats, then so be it.

On the other hand if the task requires 24 F35Cs plus EH101 and ASAC then if that's possible from time to time then fine. That would be an air group with more capability than most air forces.

I agree with all of that. I can even envisage circumstances in which no fighters are thought to be needed, and a helicopter-only air group is embarked.

I was commenting on a suggestion that the maximum fighter force was likely to be little more than what the US LHDs usually operate, i.e. half a dozen.

 

[WillS]

Operating the QEs with no more than half a dozen F-35C would make a mockery of having them. They'd be a worldwide standing joke.

Surely that would depend on the role. I've been a fan of the USNs Wasp/America classes for some time and of the opinion that we should have gone for three vessels of this type to replace both the small carriers and Ocean (minus the well dock as with the first few Americas).

That ship has of course long sailed but I think the possibility of the two QEs operating like big Wasps is strong. In other words a small squadron (remember the RNs GR9 squadrons were down to 10 aircraft at the end) of F35s with a mix of attack (Apache) and lift (Merlins) helicopters as a standard complement. With a larger number of F35s + ASW helicopters when operating in sea control mode.

I remember a lot of talk before the defence review that one of the possibilities for the UK forces was to concentrate on a "sea based raiding" role and dispensing with deep interventions like Afghanistan/Iraq. There were also quite a few comments floating around to the effect that we should model UK armed forces on the US Marines. I can see this happening in the review of 2015 and the QEs (both equipped with Cats n Traps) would seem right for the role.

WillS

 

[kev 99]

I remember a lot of talk before the defence review that one of the possibilities for the UK forces was to concentrate on a "sea based raiding" role and dispensing with deep interventions like Afghanistan/Iraq. There were also quite a few comments floating around to the effect that we should model UK armed forces on the US Marines. I can see this happening in the review of 2015 and the QEs (both equipped with Cats n Traps) would seem right for the role.

WillS

I can see that view being quite unpopular with the army, less big interventions means less bodies required.

 

[swerve]

Surely that would depend on the role..

WillS

See above. Already answered.