The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[davros]

You cant kill the Davros I will always make a return.
Yeah I agree about Ocean I have heard from a few people that have served on her that she was in a very poor state before going into refit. Ocean only has a life span of 18 years so a decision about her future will be needed in the not to distant future, The navy wanted 2 LPH one to replace Ocean and another to replace the Ark in her role as an LPH. Your probably right that £400million would be a more fair sum to be put aside for each unit.

 

[harryriedl]

Davros, I'm surprised to see you still around, after Saturday evening.

Small point - you can't get an LPH for £200 million, unless maybe you buy the LPH equivalent of Indonesias new Korean budget LPDs (I think good ships for Indonesias needs, BTW - I'm not knocking them). Ocean was underpriced (the shipyard lost money), & it seems to be generally agreed that even so, she was built too cheaply, causing additional post-build costs. Add inflation since she was built, & an equivalent ship, to a desirable standard, & which would allow the builders to make a modest profit, should cost about £400 million if built in the UK now.

so say in 10 years time RN looking for to LPH replacement's would it be 800 million for the pair to replace Ocean and Ark. Would that by two cheap Cavour style LPH [no gt sparse electronics fit ect]. seems a good deal

 

[harryriedl]

to get of topic so more contracts have been awarded
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7490041.stm

Companies win £91m ship contracts
An aircraft carrier
Aircraft carriers are a vital part of the Royal Navy's fleet

Seven UK firms have won contracts totalling £91.5m to build parts for the Navy's two new aircraft carriers.

Corus, based in Scunthorpe, will get £65m to provide steel for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Five other English firms, in Dorset, Greater Manchester, Surrey, Suffolk and Lancashire, will build products ranging from control towers to landing aids.

Scottish firm MacTaggart Scott & Co, in Mid Lothian, will get £13m to build aircraft lifts for the £3.2bn ships.

On Thursday the Ministry of Defence (MoD) signed contracts to build the 919ft (280m) long carriers, the biggest in the UK's history.

Each will be capable of carrying up to 40 planes and will eventually carry the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

Peter Symonds, air operations manager for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, said construction of the carriers would provide a major economic boost for firms up and down the country.

The Alliance is a partnership of the main companies building the ships, including BAE Systems.


Where the money goes
Map showing firm's locations
1. MacTaggart Scott & Co £13m
2. Salt Separation Services £1m
3. Brand Rex £3m
4. Corus £65m
5. Tex Special Products £1m
6. Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine BV £1m
7. Aeronautical & General Instruments £7.5m

"The majority of the contracts have been placed or are in the process of being placed at the moment," he said.

"Most of them are going to UK companies. A lot of the firms will have been employed in the maritime industry anyway.

"But any new contracts with us opens up their chances of winning further contracts in the future."

Keith Hazlewood, national secretary of the GMB Union, said: "It's only good news for UK manufacturing, creating further jobs outside the building of the aircraft carriers, for various parts of the country.

"It's much needed work for many communities and once again demonstrates that UK manufacturing is not dying."

Aeronautical & General Instruments, from Poole, Dorset, has been awarded a £7.5m contract to design and build visual landing aids.

Salt Separation Services, of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, gets £1m to equip the ships with water production systems.

Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine BV, from New Malden, Surrey, will provide an Integrated Navigation and Bridge System (INBS) for £1m.

Tex Special Products, in Ipswich, Suffolk, will build two "flycos" - flying control centres, after also being awarded a £1m contract.

And Brand Rex, from Leigh, Lancashire, gets £3m for a Blown Fibre Optic Cable Plant (BFOCP).

some are familiar and some are new

 

[Systems Adict]

to get of topic so more contracts have been awarded
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7490041.stm

Companies win £91m ship contracts
An aircraft carrier
Aircraft carriers are a vital part of the Royal Navy's fleet

Seven UK firms have won contracts totalling £91.5m to build parts for the Navy's two new aircraft carriers.

Corus, based in Scunthorpe, will get £65m to provide steel for HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Five other English firms, in Dorset, Greater Manchester, Surrey, Suffolk and Lancashire, will build products ranging from control towers to landing aids.

Scottish firm MacTaggart Scott & Co, in Mid Lothian, will get £13m to build aircraft lifts for the £3.2bn ships.

On Thursday the Ministry of Defence (MoD) signed contracts to build the 919ft (280m) long carriers, the biggest in the UK's history.

Each will be capable of carrying up to 40 planes and will eventually carry the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

Peter Symonds, air operations manager for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, said construction of the carriers would provide a major economic boost for firms up and down the country.

The Alliance is a partnership of the main companies building the ships, including BAE Systems.


Where the money goes
Map showing firm's locations
1. MacTaggart Scott & Co £13m
2. Salt Separation Services £1m
3. Brand Rex £3m
4. Corus £65m
5. Tex Special Products £1m
6. Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine BV £1m
7. Aeronautical & General Instruments £7.5m

"The majority of the contracts have been placed or are in the process of being placed at the moment," he said.

"Most of them are going to UK companies. A lot of the firms will have been employed in the maritime industry anyway.

"But any new contracts with us opens up their chances of winning further contracts in the future."

Keith Hazlewood, national secretary of the GMB Union, said: "It's only good news for UK manufacturing, creating further jobs outside the building of the aircraft carriers, for various parts of the country.

"It's much needed work for many communities and once again demonstrates that UK manufacturing is not dying."

Aeronautical & General Instruments, from Poole, Dorset, has been awarded a £7.5m contract to design and build visual landing aids.

Salt Separation Services, of Rochdale, Greater Manchester, gets £1m to equip the ships with water production systems.

Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine BV, from New Malden, Surrey, will provide an Integrated Navigation and Bridge System (INBS) for £1m.

Tex Special Products, in Ipswich, Suffolk, will build two "flycos" - flying control centres, after also being awarded a £1m contract.

And Brand Rex, from Leigh, Lancashire, gets £3m for a Blown Fibre Optic Cable Plant (BFOCP).

some are familiar and some are new

Nice to see some sense at last in the continuity stakes !

McTaggart Scott supplied most of the Helo handling kit for the RN on the Type 21 / 22 / 23's.

AGI make the glide path Indicators & some of the other stuff to do with flight decks & general related systems.

Brand Rex is 1 of the larger cable manufacturers in the UK, & have the capability to provide the Fibres & cable management systems required for the complex systems throughout the ship.

Lets hope this trend continues, bit like the "made & Built in America" ethos that is used in the US !

SA

 

[davros]

from what i remember McTaggart Scott also made the catapult and arrester gear for the refit of the old ark, and also developed the equipment for CVA-01.

 

[Super Nimrod]

Is a SLEP of the Ark a possibility in the future to extend her life as a spare LPH/Carrier ?

Does anyone know if the deck lifts on the Ark could cope with the slightly larger but much heavier F-35B ?

 

[davros]

There was talk of lengthening the Invincibles and giving them an SLEP so they could operate the F-35 i believe this was ruled out as to expensive, As Ark now operates part time as an LPH i am unsure what there plans now are for her, I would think its better value to build a new ship but i don't know.

 

[harryriedl]

Is a SLEP of the Ark a possibility in the future to extend her life as a spare LPH/Carrier ?

Does anyone know if the deck lifts on the Ark could cope with the slightly larger but much heavier F-35B ?

from what ive read Arks lifts rated 40 Ton. The only problem i really see is the size of the lifts compared with the size of the F35B

dose anyone have ideas how they compare?

 

[Sea Toby]

from what ive read Arks lifts rated 40 Ton. The only problem i really see is the size of the lifts compared with the size of the F35B

dose anyone have ideas how they compare?

Combat Fleets of the World says two 16.7 meters x 9.7 meters for the Invincible class carriers. I have not been able to find the Queen Elizabeth's size yet. While the Invincibles are rated for one Harrier each, 40 ton, , the Queen Elizabeth's two lifts are rated for two Lightning IIs and Harriers each, 70 tons.
Every graphic released by the Royal Navy shows two Lightning IIs on each lift. I assume the Royal Navy knows what they want and will get it. Why are you so interested in the exact size? The Royal Navy has probably added a fudge factor to include two Rafaels and/or two Hornets or Super Hornets too.

 

[StevoJH]

Davros, I'm surprised to see you still around, after Saturday evening.

Small point - you can't get an LPH for £200 million, unless maybe you buy the LPH equivalent of Indonesias new Korean budget LPDs (I think good ships for Indonesias needs, BTW - I'm not knocking them). Ocean was underpriced (the shipyard lost money), & it seems to be generally agreed that even so, she was built too cheaply, causing additional post-build costs. Add inflation since she was built, & an equivalent ship, to a desirable standard, & which would allow the builders to make a modest profit, should cost about £400 million if built in the UK now.

You arent going to get a QE for £1 billion either though. What would you rather risk? a £400-500 million LPH or two, or a £2 billion aircraft carrier.

 

[riksavage]

No commander in his right mind will base his decision making on 'financial cost of asset' in a military context, so why are we debating risking the loss of an LHP over a Carrier! Name one conflict were a commander has undertaken a financial risk assessment to determine which assets to deploy. His/her decision making will be driven by what ship or combination of ships is required to succeed, if that means the RN deploying a carrier becuase it doesn't have an available LHP then so be it. These vessels are not designed for the benefit of Navy Days to impress the general public, these are weapons of war delivering the maximum punch Britain can send / afford without relying on friendly real estate.

This I can't help but summise is the fundermental difference between some European Navy's who beleive their fleets are for show only and the RN who is prepared to use its assets for war fighting.

 

[StevoJH]

No commander in his right mind will base his decision making on 'financial cost of asset' in a military context, so why are we debating risking the loss of an LHP over a Carrier! Name one conflict were a commander has undertaken a financial risk assessment to determine which assets to deploy. His/her decision making will be driven by what ship or combination of ships is required to succeed, if that means the RN deploying a carrier becuase it doesn't have an available LHP then so be it. These vessels are not designed for the benefit of Navy Days to impress the general public, these are weapons of war delivering the maximum punch Britain can send / afford without relying on friendly real estate.

This I can't help but summise is the fundermental difference between some European Navy's who beleive their fleets are for show only and the RN who is prepared to use its assets for war fighting.

The point is that Aircraft carriers are for launching jets and helicoptersfor attacking targets whether they are on the ground, in the air or at sea. It would be a waste of the aircraft and of the ships to use them as an LPH when it is more cost efficient to use them in their proper role with a smaller, cheaper, specially designed ship to carry out the LPH role. Besides, you are probably only going to have one CVF available if you have to deploy in a hurry, and having the smaller LPH's on hand gives you redundency.

 

[battlensign]

The point is that Aircraft carriers are for launching jets and helicoptersfor attacking targets whether they are on the ground, in the air or at sea. It would be a waste of the aircraft and of the ships to use them as an LPH when it is more cost efficient to use them in their proper role with a smaller, cheaper, specially designed ship to carry out the LPH role. Besides, you are probably only going to have one CVF available if you have to deploy in a hurry, and having the smaller LPH's on hand gives you redundency.

Obsolutely. It's not about basing operationally deployments on economic considerations. It's about realising that there is likely only to be one carrier operational at any one time and that should an LPH be required then an LPH ought to be used - not a carrier in an LPH role. The carrier might be able to perform that role, but to blunt, did Sierra Lione require Ocean or QE2 and PoW type capability? I would suggest the former rather than the latter. As such, the use of a Strategic tool like one of the carriers is overkill.

Brett.

 

[Super Nimrod]

One of the more pleasing aspects of the CVF is the large lifts that are open to the sea at one end. It will certainly make them more future proof.

 

[davros]

The point is that Aircraft carriers are for launching jets and helicoptersfor attacking targets whether they are on the ground, in the air or at sea. It would be a waste of the aircraft and of the ships to use them as an LPH when it is more cost efficient to use them in their proper role with a smaller, cheaper, specially designed ship to carry out the LPH role. Besides, you are probably only going to have one CVF available if you have to deploy in a hurry, and having the smaller LPH's on hand gives you redundency.

I fully agree with you.

 

[riksavage]

Believe me I would love the RN to have both Carriers and LHP's, but unfortunately they will not have the man-power for both (even under the TOPMAST manning system), so therefore if a push comes to a shove I would rather have two large Carriers capable of being adapted as hybrid Carrier / LHP's than say three LHP's capable of being used as light Carriers. The UK already has pretty good amphib resources (Albion's and Bays), so we can survive without an LHP once the two Carriers are commissioned. Not ideal I know, but we have to operate within our manning limitations.

Also in the event of a European or Five Nations (Aus, NZ, Malaysia, Sing and UK) emergency occurring after 2014 there will be enough LHP's in both regions to accompany a UK Carrier Battle Group (assuming the US doesn't get involved).

 

[supermachiner]

id be happy with no LPH and just the two carriers although id prefer to hang onto ark royal for as long as possible in the LPH role.

I'd like to know how effective people think these carriers will be in a combat situation; making the assumption that they have a full load of f-35b. are there any tasks in which they will surpass the french and american carriers and visa versa.

Also the AEW question - I dont really fully understand this so please forgive any nieve comment. I undertand the value of an e2 over a sea king or merlin but is there a possibilty of fitting a UAV with the sensor loadout needed and then operating this from the ship or a land base? Would this option, if viable, be cheaper and/or more effective in the long run?

Thanks

 

[WillS]

Combat Fleets of the World says two 16.7 meters x 9.7 meters for the Invincible class carriers. I have not been able to find the Queen Elizabeth's size yet. While the Invincibles are rated for one Harrier each, 40 ton, , the Queen Elizabeth's two lifts are rated for two Lightning IIs and Harriers each, 70 tons.

Of course, the real problem with the Invincible class lifts is that they are in the middle of the deck/runway - a non-optimal design characteristic for an aircraft carrier attempting to sustain sorties throughout a day!

.. though of course, not so much trouble for a "through deck cruiser" armed with Sea Dart and Exocet and a few helicopters, which was how this class was originally sold to the politicians of the day by the RN.

WillS

 

[WillS]

Also the AEW question - I dont really fully understand this so please forgive any nieve comment. I undertand the value of an e2 over a sea king or merlin but is there a possibilty of fitting a UAV with the sensor loadout needed and then operating this from the ship or a land base? Would this option, if viable, be cheaper and/or more effective in the long run?

The issues for AEW are:

1: Ability to carry the kit (weight/size)
2: Ability to communicate data with decision makers
3: Endurance
4: Operational ceiling (the higher you get, the more you see)
5: Ability to be launched/recovered

Not sure about '1' as I don't know how much AEW kit weighs, or is sized. But as both helicopter platforms and E2s are big craft, size might be an issue.

'2' isn't a problem, a good case could be made for saying that sitting people in the AEW platform is unnecessary given the quality of data links available from the AEW platform to where the real decision are actually made (on the command ship)

'3' and '4' - This is where helicopters fall down, the operational ceiling of an E2 is 30,000ft, compared to 15,000 for a Merlin and 11,500 for a Sea King (according to public available figures). Operational ceilings for UAVs are good (50,000 for a Predator) as is endurance but of course the weight issues might drastically alter that.

'5' is the biggie for the RN, at least with known, proven UAVs. These are big beasts and I'm guessing that some sort of arrestor/catapult launch would be necessary. As would airframe strengthening to take the stresses of same. And if it were a rotary UAV, then presumably it would have the same operational ceiling issues as other helicopters.

I think the RN is taking a reasonable approach at the moment, given likely adversaries. Helicopters will do.

Of course, my personal preference would have been for the RN to build conventional carriers and equip them with launch/arrestor gear, E2s and the (cheaper, easier to maintain, longer range, higher payload, quicker to be delivered) conventional carrier version of the F-35.

WillS

 

[davros]

Apparantly if the Invincibles had a SLEP they were to be lengthend but this would have only allowed them to operate an additional 4 F-35B not great value for money, The good thing about the CVF is that cats and arrestor's can be fitted fairly easy so there is still time to chose what version of the F-35 we will fly from them, I would also like to see the F-35c version.