The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[WillS]

Interesting - can't find any solid information as to how it went as a trial though.

Food for thought..

I remember reading a comment from a USN officer somewhere (can't remember where alas) who suggested that one of the reasons sea swap was a failure was that the concept failed to generate any real attachment between crew and ship and within crew. Personnel would be placed in one vessel, leave it after their tour and then find themselves in different ship as part of an entirely different team.

He contrasted it with SSBN experiences where both crews always felt they were the crew of, for instance, HMS Vanguard, instead of just being generic rotatable boat crew.

WillS

 

[exPrivate]

Also, any info on why HMS Dragon has missed her planned commission date? (AFAIK she isn't in service yet but was meant to have been in late January )

From this link I had the impression it is already commissioned
Enter the Dragon! | Royal Navy
Know nothing about HMS Ambush, though.

 

[RobWilliams]

From this link I had the impression it is already commissioned
Enter the Dragon! | Royal Navy
Know nothing about HMS Ambush, though.

Smashing link, i study in Cardiff so i'll definitely have a poke around aboard

 

[Seaforth]

Hmmm... Guardian reports that decision to buy F35C instead of F35B may be reversed as the redesign of carriers and installation of cats and traps is more expensive..

here we are US Navy Vice Admiral Venlet quoted by Bloomberg:

Bloomberg reports

 

[Volkodav]

here we are US Navy Vice Admiral Venlet quoted by Bloomberg:

Bloomberg reports

I wonder if its a case of the UK government finally listening to the experts instead of relying on snapshots and gut feeling from ammatures. The sortie rates that can be generated by STO/VL aircraft is apparently much greater than for Cat and Trap so would appear to be the better option in you are talking fewer airframes. This would still leave the option for the RAF to opt for the F-35A as a Tornado replacement. A win win all round.

 

[Seaforth]

I wonder if its a case of the UK government finally listening to the experts instead of relying on snapshots and gut feeling from ammatures. The sortie rates that can be generated by STO/VL aircraft is apparently much greater than for Cat and Trap so would appear to be the better option in you are talking fewer airframes. This would still leave the option for the RAF to opt for the F-35A as a Tornado replacement. A win win all round.

Also perhaps: the UK's first F35's are being built now (F35B), F35B have already conducted ship board trials unlike the other type which has a hook problem, having a VSTOL Queen Elizabeth and a CTOL Prince of Wales is absurd, a Queen Elizabeth without fixed wing aircraft for some years will be a source of ridicule, the cost of CTOL conversion is higher than expected, interoperability with the RAF force is more important than interoperability with the USN and MN (though which f35 version does the RAF prefer these days?

If I were a politician I would revert to F35B. That way I could show Queen Elizabeth "finished" much earlier, take some risks out of the program (it's a long time since the UK lost the CTOL carrier skills), probably save a few quid in capex and opex, and it might make for a more harmonious RN / RAF relationship.

Let's see what happens..

 

[Seaforth]

Plus I reckon the USMC and the Spanish/Italians would be thrilled to have the UK revert to F35B, whereas the USNavy CTOL force doesn't care as they have plenty of resources and don't need to rely on a smaller flat top and as they would now see it a potentially flaky partner.

As for MN, I suspect that the UK/French relationship is not that cosy after the recent arguments about fiscal policy. So the MN probably doesn't care either.

i.e. there is now more to be gained politically by shifting back to F35B...

All very interesting, the ebbs and flows. What seems so right and obvious one year can be so touch and go (forgive the pun) the next...

I think that's what's missing from this forum.. understanding of real politik... the best technical solution may not be the best political decision. And the best political decision can change depending on circumstances.

Anyway it probably depends on the cost v benefit over the next few years - the event horizon of PM Cameron. Will it cost less to go with CTOL or VSTOL? And could one be operational (as far as the media is concerned) sooner?

We shall soon see the outcome of this debate.

None of us knows the cost of canceling EMALS etc etc etc so we shall just have to wait and see!

 

[kev 99]

A few points:

1. I thought it was common knowledge that the RAF wanted F35C for the Tornado replacement? F35B doesn't have the legs for it.

2. Improved Sortie rates for STOVL doesn't mean much if you don't have the aircraft numbers to generate them.

3. UK and French Governments announced cooperation on a number of defence projects just a few weeks ago, it looks like the relationship is just fine.

 

[ProM]

There are pros and cons for both aircraft, and the assessment can be different depending upon the timescales you choose. For example if you look over the long term (and QEC has a 50yr life) then fixed wing AEW is a powerful factor in favour of the F-35C.

Net result: the experts are divided. I don't think a final decision will be made until 2013 because there is lots to consider beside EMALS

 

[Repulse]

The conversion of QE now seems very unlikely to be in the timeframe touted (just after PoW comes on line).

 

[kev 99]

There are pros and cons for both aircraft, and the assessment can be different depending upon the timescales you choose. For example if you look over the long term (and QEC has a 50yr life) then fixed wing AEW is a powerful factor in favour of the F-35C.

Quite.

Experts in favour of either option can right quote advantages against the opposition, it's all down to which option meets the requirements of the customer.

 

[swerve]

A few points:

1. I thought it was common knowledge that the RAF wanted F35C for the Tornado replacement? F35B doesn't have the legs for it.

2. Improved Sortie rates for STOVL doesn't mean much if you don't have the aircraft numbers to generate them..

1. Indeed.
2. Often overlooked. The improved sortie rates for STOVL are, as I understand it, down to deck utilisation, not aircraft turn round. The more aircraft aboard, the bigger the STOVL advantage in sortie rate, & IIRC below a certain number (dependent on deck size & configuration) the advantage disappears.

 

[Troothsayer]

What's best for the long term may not be affordable right now, so it looks more and more like F35B. It seems incomprehensible for any government to look beyond 4 years and do the right thing for the future.

Suggestions earlier of a split A/B buy are nonsense, money is tight and we would not fund 2 supply and support lines to 2 different aircraft. However, does anyone else think it more likely the UK will end up with 2 CVF if 'B' is chosen?

If the cost of £1.8bn for conversion of PoW is true, then a retro-conversion of QE is a complete non starter. This does look like the hand of Philip Hammond, you just wish someone... anyone... would make a positive decision (and stick to it).

 

[swerve]

The cost of £1.8bn for conversion is baffling.

The ships are supposed to have been designed with a view to conversion in the future. £1.8bn is not a great deal less than the original price of the whole bloody ship. A very pessimistic estimate of the cost of the hardware & initial support package for EMALS & AAG is about £500mn. Where does the rest come from? How can it cost over half the original build cost (before political interference pushed it up) to convert a ship designed specifically to accept such a conversion, & which is at a very early stage of construction?

Either that figure is grossly inflated, or someone, somewhere, has grievously screwed up.

 

[kev 99]

The cost of £1.8bn for conversion is baffling.

The ships are supposed to have been designed with a view to conversion in the future. £1.8bn is not a great deal less than the original price of the whole bloody ship. A very pessimistic estimate of the cost of the hardware & initial support package for EMALS & AAG is about £500mn. Where does the rest come from? How can it cost over half the original build cost (before political interference pushed it up) to convert a ship designed specifically to accept such a conversion, & which is at a very early stage of construction?

Either that figure is grossly inflated, or someone, somewhere, has grievously screwed up.

If there is any truth in that figure whatsoever then the provision for later conversion to CATOBAR will have been limited to them being 'a big ship'.

I always thought since CVF was originally designed as a STOVL carrier that it was designed to be big carriers done on cheap, these latest stories aren't doing anything to dispel that.

 

[StobieWan]

The estimates are frankly astonishing - you could rework a *supertanker* into a CATOBAR carrier for that kind of dosh. Christ, it'd be cheaper to salvage USS American (CV-66), refloat it and fit it with GT's and EMALS than this...WTF etc..

Emals plus AARG is what, $800million USD? £600m so, add in a couple of hundred of mill for stuffing it in and job's a good 'un...surely?

If it were true, it'd make a go/no-go on C vs B a total no brainer mind...

 

[RobWilliams]

The estimates are frankly astonishing - you could rework a *supertanker* into a CATOBAR carrier for that kind of dosh. Christ, it'd be cheaper to salvage USS American (CV-66), refloat it and fit it with GT's and EMALS than this...WTF etc..

Emals plus AARG is what, $800million USD? £600m so, add in a couple of hundred of mill for stuffing it in and job's a good 'un...surely?

If it were true, it'd make a go/no-go on C vs B a total no brainer mind...

I really hope it's an administrative error, otherwise i'll be highly disappointed with the MoD.

It must be wrong, i'd have thought they'd have taken this into account in the 2010 SDSR.

 

[1805]

I would think the cost does not have to go to far over £500m before conversion of both ships becomes very marginal, even if numbers reach c50 aircraft (i.e. £20m/aircraft).

 

[StobieWan]

I would think the cost does not have to go to far over £500m before conversion of both ships becomes very marginal, even if numbers reach c50 aircraft (i.e. £20m/aircraft).

The base cost of the catapults and arresting gear would be over £600 million.

 

[WillS]

It must be wrong, i'd have thought they'd have taken this into account in the 2010 SDSR.

I think many of us got the impression that the calculations backing up some of the SDSR decisions were done on the back of a napkin, 10 minutes before the decisions were announced.

Regrettably, I would not be surprised if this turned out to be close to the truth.

WillS