The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[RobWilliams]

Thankfully the current Government appears to have a slightly different stance, with Ministers being proactive in marketing for major projects involving Britain like Typhoon.

Hopefully things will be pushed just as hard in a few years when there's more substance to the Type 26 vis a vis Aust, NZ & Brazil.

EDIT: Royal Navy publication "A Global Force" was released today, and it's quite a good read

http://www.newsdeskmedia.com/files/Global-Force-2013.pdf

Interesting point, apparently the "full load" of the QEC is still down as 50 aircraft. Very much a "when the sh!t hits the fan" scenario.

 

[swerve]

I did, I read the events differently.

What matters is not what happened, but how it appears to an uninformed audience. Any potential foreign buyer won't care about how suitable the design really is, but how the local press will spin it.

Do you really think that it wouldn't be portrayed as I described it in the Brazilian gutter press? They'll be enthusiastically fed that line by various interested parties, & it's far too good a story not to print, whether or not it fits that facts.

Don't underestimate the effects of such perceptions. The world is full of major decisions being taken on the basis of how they'll look, & politicians are particularly susceptible to it.

 

[StobieWan]

In which case they'll have a lot more fun with DCNS CdG had an interesting history and first couple of years of operational experience.

I guess that leaves a clear run for Fincantieri then? Di Cavour is new, shiny, any richly amusing controversy during it's build ?


I'm just trying to think if there's anyone with recent industrial experience of carrier-ish objects that might be in the running.


Either way, CVF is fairly unique - it's a large GT powered aircraft carrier (most of the competitors are nuclear or steam. And I'm liking the twin island concept combined with the GT's being placed high in the ship - cuts out a lot of trunking for intakes so no impact to the hangar. I'm looking forward to seeing the pair of them in the water, been a long wait to see something this size in RN service.

 

[StobieWan]

Thankfully the current Government appears to have a slightly different stance, with Ministers being proactive in marketing for major projects involving Britain like Typhoon.

Hopefully things will be pushed just as hard in a few years when there's more substance to the Type 26 vis a vis Aust, NZ & Brazil.

EDIT: Royal Navy publication "A Global Force" was released today, and it's quite a good read

http://www.newsdeskmedia.com/files/Global-Force-2013.pdf

Interesting point, apparently the "full load" of the QEC is still down as 50 aircraft. Very much a "when the sh!t hits the fan" scenario.

Interestingly enough some solid hints that both carriers would be run on and in extremis, perhaps both could be in operation simultaneously (WWIII, that sort of occasion I guess)

 

[RobWilliams]

That's the current line, Hammond has said in the past that given enough notice, both carriers could be operated. But as you say that'd be a very rare occasion, something where we would be operating alone without any sort of international backup *cough* Falklands *cough*.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Anyway apart from that period, I can't imagine a conflict where a Queen Elizabeth class carrier wouldn't be enough to do the job. Plus, if we factor in the Lancaster House agreements with the French in '10 apparently we're going to be buddy-buddy for a while. To those of you who're going to scoff at that, in the last French white paper it was specifically mentioned that to sustain it's larger task force (carrier, 2 LHDs . . . ) it would depend on Royal Navy support. If situations like Libya turn up then we will have that sort of collaboration going on.

Apart from that, it's not a bad task force we've going going on

An interesting point I read a few days ago, some people are advocates for 3 ~30,000t STOVL carriers than our current ones right? Can't imagine it'd be 3 after the financial crisis hits, one would've got cut leaving us with two ships similar to the Cavour rather than the assets we will get.

 

[t68]

That's the current line, Hammond has said in the past that given enough notice, both carriers could be operated. But as you say that'd be a very rare occasion, something where we would be operating alone without any sort of international backup *cough* Falklands *cough*.

Sorry, couldn't resist

Anyway apart from that period, I can't imagine a conflict where a Queen Elizabeth class carrier wouldn't be enough to do the job. Plus, if we factor in the Lancaster House agreements with the French in '10 apparently we're going to be buddy-buddy for a while. To those of you who're going to scoff at that, in the last French white paper it was specifically mentioned that to sustain it's larger task force (carrier, 2 LHDs . . . ) it would depend on Royal Navy support. If situations like Libya turn up then we will have that sort of collaboration going on.

Apart from that, it's not a bad task force we've going going on

An interesting point I read a few days ago, some people are advocates for 3 ~30,000t STOVL carriers than our current ones right? Can't imagine it'd be 3 after the financial crisis hits, one would've got cut leaving us with two ships similar to the Cavour rather than the assets we will get.

Well with the smaller carriers you would at least be sure 2 would be in service as the airwing would the same as a single QE class carrier or 2 with a max of 24 aircraft each available.

Myself would have liked to see the RN get three smaller carrier as 2 carriers can combine their efforts one solely working with fast jets whilst the other works the helo force both can focus on their mission at the time without time wasted moving between fast jet and helicopter operations.

 

[Volkodav]

Well with the smaller carriers you would at least be sure 2 would be in service as the airwing would the same as a single QE class carrier or 2 with a max of 24 aircraft each available.

Myself would have liked to see the RN get three smaller carrier as 2 carriers can combine their efforts one solely working with fast jets whilst the other works the helo force both can focus on their mission at the time without time wasted moving between fast jet and helicopter operations.

But that's just it the RN would not get three. Even if all of them were built they would never have three in service , so what you would have is the same number of hulls as you are getting now but each would be less capable.

 

[t68]

But that's just it the RN would not get three. Even if all of them were built they would never have three in service , so what you would have is the same number of hulls as you are getting now but each would be less capable.

I was working on the assumption that the same ironclad contract would be in place also, but being smaller would they be easier to offload to say the RAN or the brazilians or would they mothball one, Ocean coming up for retirement soonish

I was thinking something about the same displacement as America class.

 

[RobWilliams]

It would be worked around, how the contract worked was that they had to be built, there would be nothing to stop the 3 carriers being built and then one sold off to whoever which is more likely because as you say a smaller STOVL carrier is more attractive. Even if this Government wanted to offload POW, the stumbling block is to who? Who would want it and afford to pay for it?

In the Falklands with our two carriers, we didn't operate one full of SHAR and the other full of helos, and I'd expect this to be the same if we had 3 smaller carriers. The thinking being that if one ship is sunk, we haven't just lost our entire fast jet fleet or rotary fleet.

Besides which, the QEC are designed with the F-35B in mind, they are designed for the optimum sortie generation rate available for the aircraft with stores to match.

The best case scenario when Ocean leaves in 2018 is that we wait until the 2030s and replace the LPDs with LHDs, as we sure as hell aren't getting an Ocean replacement. IMO that's be perfect, 2 carriers and 2 LHDs each flopping from RFTG to maintenance.

In any case, we're keeping these two*, and I wouldn't even be sure building 3 smaller ships would be much cheaper, just less efficient and effective for flight ops.

*noticed Bonza in the RAN thread the decision has been made, it hasn't, but all indications are very positive about how much keeping the second is worth.

 

[StobieWan]

The RN did look at three carriers but around the 40K mark and discarded that on various grounds - thing is, the QE's run with a very low crew, will obviously be easier to work with in heavy weather (in terms of keeping up speed, getting aircraft on or off, handling stuff)

There's pros and cons but I suspect having one large and capable carrier on tap at all times (barring something very odd) will be better than 1 1/2 ish smaller carriers.

You'd need more crew for three 40K carriers as well.

 

[RobWilliams]

It's not as though I don't like the idea of 3 x 40,000t ships, but from my understanding we got the following benefits for building them how we have

• Better sea handling
• Better aircraft capacity
• Better sortie generation
• Larger stores for fuel/weapons
• More play in accommodation for Marines
• More efficient flight deck operations

All for a modest increase in crewing and a modest construction cost increase. If anything i'm not so sure 3 x 40,000 would be much cheaper if at all than building 2 x 65,000

 

[1805]

The switch to the F35c & then back has changed my thinking on the concept of the ships. I did like the idea of F35c, I think more for some strange status in CATOBAR, being back in the strike carrier game, on a par with the USN. But there is no doubt in my mind now that the F35b/CVF is the best solution for the RN. The RN doesn't need a dedicated strike carrier, it needs a multirole platform the arrival of which would completely change the military/political balance.

3 would have been nice, but one of these ships will achieve this and in a major crisis its most likely both will be available.

I'm sure the capability could have been achieved in a 45,000t ship, but the stretch in the CVF will help to future proof them. One of the biggest issues with the post 1945 carrier,s in RN services, was they lacked this, which contributed to their comparatively short frontline service.

 

[Bonza]

*noticed Bonza in the RAN thread the decision has been made, it hasn't, but all indications are very positive about how much keeping the second is worth.

Ah, thanks for the pickup mate, my mistake.

 

[Volkodav]

The old adage that "steel is cheap and air is free" is demonstrated very well with the QE, the gain in capability over a smaller design while maintaining similar overhead costs has made the extra size well worth the effort. A single QE is far more capable than a single smaller ship while not significantly more expensive to build or operate while three smaller carriers will be significantly more expensive to procure and operate than a pair of QEs while rarely if ever offering greater availability.

What would be interesting is a LHD or LHA to replace Ocean (funds permitting) and another to replace either Bulwark or Albion in due time. Down the track the remaining LPD could be replaced with one of the QEs to be used as a LPH and a new carrier commissioned incorporating lessons learned from the first two and perhaps facilities for UCAVs.

 

[RobWilliams]

No worries Bonza, I probably didn't help because I pretty much consider it a done deal. If there was bad press coming out about it from the Government then that'd be something different, and it's a project commissioned under the Labour government so i'd imagine they'd quite like them completed too. Jim Murphy (DefSec Labour) has called the program "vital to national security", his beef is about the U-turn, so he seems to want them to stay too.

@Volkodav

That's exactly my thinking, the capability increase of going for 2 bigger carriers is worth it than the 4 smaller ones.

[fantasy fleet]

I really like the idea of losing Ocean and shifting the Junglies over onto a QEC and then ~8/9 years after the QEC reaches FOC (~2031) when designs for replacements for Albion/Bulwark come in, they get replaced by LHDs.

That way, the QEC can focus on having a primary F35B airgroup with ~24 minimum, and the medium lift helos/Apaches can be shifted onto those LHDs. If we want C'hooks then they'd still have to stay on the QEC due to the size and lilypad onto the LHD.

Best scenario IMO, that way you'd have something like Merlin HC4's, Wildcats & Apaches getting the troops ashore + providing CAS leaving CAP/AEW for the carrier + JSF. [/fantasy fleet]

That's what I reckon should happen, we will be losing Ocean without replacement so if such a development occured it could only happen with the LPDs.

 

[1805]

The old adage that "steel is cheap and air is free" is demonstrated very well with the QE, the gain in capability over a smaller design while maintaining similar overhead costs has made the extra size well worth the effort. A single QE is far more capable than a single smaller ship while not significantly more expensive to build or operate while three smaller carriers will be significantly more expensive to procure and operate than a pair of QEs while rarely if ever offering greater availability.

What would be interesting is a LHD or LHA to replace Ocean (funds permitting) and another to replace either Bulwark or Albion in due time. Down the track the remaining LPD could be replaced with one of the QEs to be used as a LPH and a new carrier commissioned incorporating lessons learned from the first two and perhaps facilities for UCAVs.

A single class of 3 ships instead of 1 LPH, 2 x LPD & 2 CVF might have been interesting. The F35b does provide a great deal of flexibility, compared with say a CATOBAR/Rafale/CDG & 3 Mistrals.

 

[swerve]

The problem I see with a single class of three ships is that we end up with a shortage of either dock or deck space.

 

[RobWilliams]

I'd say more dock & hangar, IIRC after the first 3 America class LHA's they're going to have docks due to past experiences about getting troops to shore.

The flipside is their aviation capacity will be sacrificed. Same scenario here IMO

 

[swerve]

Agreed. You've put it better.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd say more dock & hangar, IIRC after the first 3 America class LHA's they're going to have docks due to past experiences about getting troops to shore.

The flipside is their aviation capacity will be sacrificed. Same scenario here IMO

Well you would still have the LSD(A)s and their successors on top of what ever you replace the LPDs and Ocean with.

A bit tongue in cheek suggesting one of the carriers replaces Ocean but who knows what you can afford in the future. My thinking is if you have the cash then build a new carrier and deploy one of the existing ones as a LPH. Switch them over as required and you will always have the flexibility to deploy a carrier or a LPH/LHD/LHA as required. Its not a big stretch when you look at the force the RN used to be able to deploy, its just a case of money for the up front procurement, sustainment is not such a big issue with modern crewing numbers (automation) and if you are deploying an existing more capable asset in a less demanding role you can save further on operating costs..