All publicity is good publicity, scare mongering will probably do the project some good, keeps it in the public eye. Daily Wail readers et al will be up in arms if we have to share with the French, quotes of Nelson spinning in his grave just add to the maelstrom. The only rumour I hold a candle to is the possible switch from B to C models of the F35, particularly now EMCAT is a real possibility and the latter is cheaper and more capable.HURRAH !!!!
At last, a quote from the governement that one would hope will shut The Guardian, the Daily Mail & The Times up !
QEC / CVF stories over quantity, what we're gonna get, wot we're not gonna get, whether we'll cancel them / whether we'll share them / whether we'll actually build them, or build both & sell one to India / Brazil / France.
These papers have been at it for the last 5 years, poo-pooing things to help sell papers / have a poke at the manufacturers / undermine the government & the ships just won't go away !
The best quote I've seen in the last 7 days over this came from a bloke called Steven Carroll, one of the Senior Project Managers on CVF, employed by BAE. Paraphrasing it read something like this...
"When are people gonna realise that the parts have already been purchased, the hulls are being manufacted & the ships are REAL!"
No more put-up or shut up, just SHUT UP !!!
... or how about the media actually getting behind the project, supporting it & getting the public to realise that the whole Military needs the funding & starting a drive to help that, by putting some of THEIR own money up to start it !
Rant over...
SA4
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
kev 99
Member
Maybe when the media in the UK actually starts to concentrate on giving space to all news and not just the negative stuff?
'A man can dream a man can dream' perhaps while their at it they can get some decent defense reporters
kev 99
Member
Steady on, baby steps and all that...............
To quote the catch phrase of a certain Mr B.A. Baracus....
" That aint gonna fly fool !" :kar
Our paths are set.
We don't need ANOTHER, DIFFERENT plane, that we haven't got any compatible / low cost spares for, or that we aren't involved in the manufacture of.
We're getting x2 carriers, with JSF (Type uncertain / Quantity uncertain).
Can we just leave it at that, & stop the muddying of the waters for the next 6 weeks, based on OUR prefference & press speculation.
Well until the SDR appears in October, when a few people will be vindicated, a lot more will be shocked, some horrified & the comments from a press who know nothing about the defence world, will wax lyrically to Joe Public, via the media, about this choice being correct & that one being wrong.
Then & only then can you suggest that we'd buy Rafale, as someone might actually believe you......
SA
Last edited:
I'm more and more convinced the QE's will be built at the expense of other Amphib assets. They carry the same crew as an Invincible, have electric drive (consistent with the T45 and future T26), automated ammo handling and can act as hybrid strike carrier / LHP's. Tri-service multi-functional assets, which tick a myriad of boxes.To quote the catch phrase of a certain Mr B.A. Baracus....
" That aint gonna fly fool !" :kar
Our paths are set.
We don't need ANOTHER, DIFFERENT plane, that we haven't got any compatible / low cost spares for, or that we aren't involved in the manufacture of.
We're getting x2 carriers, with JSF (Type uncertain / Quantity uncertain).
Can we just leave it at that, & stop the muddying of the waters for the next 6 weeks, based on OUR prefference & press speculation.
Well until the SDR appears in October, when a few people will be vindicated, a lot more will be shocked, some horrified & the comments from a press who know nothing about the defence world, will wax lyrically to Joe Public, via the media, about this choice being correct & that one being wrong.
Then & only then can you suggest that we'd buy Rafale, as someone might actually believe you......
SA
When both are in service you could say good-bye to Ocean and the Albion's. Transfer the Admirals flag and C&C RM from the current Albion class to the QE and re-write the amphib doctrine to focus on a helo-assualt in the first wave backed up by F35B/C for CAS/CAP supported by Apache as the primary substitute for over the beach armour. Once the beach-head is secure use the Bay's to bring in the infantry and heavy kit. Not ideal, but a step-up from the current offering, which has limited CAP.
Taking this approach means you get the capital assets now, and once the economy improves, you can look at buying an electric driven more efficient and cheaper LPD.
Last edited:
oky dokey,tho i should add that my preference would have been for sea typhoon from the beginning thus utilising our excess raf tiffies...........:relTo quote the catch phrase of a certain Mr B.A. Baracus....
" That aint gonna fly fool !" :kar
Our paths are set.
We don't need ANOTHER, DIFFERENT plane, that we haven't got any compatible / low cost spares for, or that we aren't involved in the manufacture of.
We're getting x2 carriers, with JSF (Type uncertain / Quantity uncertain).
Can we just leave it at that, & stop the muddying of the waters for the next 6 weeks, based on OUR prefference & press speculation.
Well until the SDR appears in October, when a few people will be vindicated, a lot more will be shocked, some horrified & the comments from a press who know nothing about the defence world, will wax lyrically to Joe Public, via the media, about this choice being correct & that one being wrong.
Then & only then can you suggest that we'd buy Rafale, as someone might actually believe you......
SA
im no fan of the rafale or the french other than i admire their independence........
Sorry for the edit of your comment, but I just wanted to 'DISCUSS' the highlighted point...I'm more and more convinced the QE's will be built at the expense of other Amphib assets...
When both are in service you could say good-bye to Ocean and the Albion's. Transfer the Admirals flag and C&C RM from the current Albion class to the QE and re-write the amphib doctrine to focus on a helo-assualt in the first wave backed up by F35B/C for CAS/CAP supported by Apache as the primary substitute for over the beach armour. Once the beach-head is secure use the Bay's to bring in the infantry and heavy kit. Not ideal, but a step-up from the current offering, which has limited CAP.
Taking this approach means you get the capital assets now, and once the economy improves, you can look at buying an electric driven more efficient and cheaper LPD.
WHAT, is wrong with the LPD's / Ocean...?
#1. Ocean - By the the time BOTH QE's are in service, Ocean will be approx 20 years old & while she's been a God send (both during her construction (by saving shipbuilding jobs) & her deployments), she will pretty much have served her purpose. Yes, an extended refit COULD give her 10 more years with the RN, but WHY?? She is unique in her present role, but the job of supporting Helo's can be done by Most RN / RFA surface ships. With the QE's in service they WILL be able to support 'several' different types of helo during their deployment.
#2. The LPD's - These ships were only completed between 2003 & 2005, entering service & being used right away, only helped to highlight that we should have had more of them, with the additional deck that was removed, as well as Hanger space (but that's all MOOT!). Anyways, the provide an 'Adequate' platform for their role & will continue to do so for the next 20years, as long as they are 'maintained'.
#3. The Bays - What can I say? Yes, they're a 'basterdised abortion' of a Dutch design, BUT.... Having worked on them, seen the capability they provide, listened to Naval staff pass comment about their capabilities, their adapatbility & the roles that have been added to, due to performance BETTER than was anticipated, I for one say that even with all the problems that were experienced during the construction of 2 of them & the additional costs, THEY are worth EVERY Taxpayers Penny !
All-in-all by sheer chance of the Amphib capability that ALL these ships provide, the support of Expeditionary forces, as well as large volume armoured veihcle transport, we have something that for once, actually works & barring the fools in Westminster making an ass of it, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
While this group of 10 vessels may not be the fastest, most heavily armed, technologically advanced surface ships in the fleet, don't be keen to do a 'John Nott & the Upholders' with them....
SA
The Albions are electrically driven efficent LPDs, especially when compared to their Fearless Class predecessors.Taking this approach means you get the capital assets now, and once the economy improves, you can look at buying an electric driven more efficient and cheaper LPD.
I happen to agree with Systems Addict, in that Ocean will be retired by 2020 and her role absorbed by CVF. However the MoD/RN would have to be smoking something to cull the other 6, especially the Bays, which have time and again proved their versatility, from resupplying South Atlantic dependencies, to Falklands patrols and humanitarian relief in Haiti.
Clearly a misunderstanding - I didn't say the RN would get rid of the Bay's, only Ocean and the two Albions. The Bay's are useful, cheap to man/run and can lift the duty ARG's heavy kit.. RM C&C can be moved to one of QE's in line with re-written doctrine focusing on over the beach assault from a helo force (as par GWII & Sierra Leone). the new QE's have been designed to host everything from F35, Chinook, Merlin to Apache. The latter provides top cover capable of substituting Chally in the first wave. F35B/C / Apache combo will dominate a 5km box around the designated landing zone. I also have no doubt Watchkeeper will also be able to be launched from the QE's extensive flight deck, thus proving added ISTAR. This combination of rotary and fixed wing armed assets will allow the lift portion (Merlin & Chinook) to drop enough RM assets to secure the beach in readiness for the Bay's to be brought forward using a combination of LC & floats carrying Viking, CVRT (FRES SV) & Chally. The whole venture supported by ship to shore fire support from the gun-line and Sentinel flying high feeding detailed imagery of all movements by enemy reinforcements moving toward the landing zone.
If the budget means losing the Albions, but gaining more T26's then I will be the first to raise my hand. The budget simply won't support the continued operation of 2 x QE's, 2 x Albions and 4 x Bays (Ocean is a given for disposal) and the buying and supporting of a credible amount of C1, 2 & 3 vessels.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
QE can't operate the Fixed Wing aircraft at the same time as she is operating as an LPH. And with only two ships, you can't expect to have both at sea at the same time all the time, thats why a third ship, to cover the time when only one QE is available, is important. Thats the role Ocean currently plays with the two active Invincible class.
Role changing between Carrier and LPH for the QE's also probably requires a refit. So if you are using your single active QE as an LPH, you have no active carrier.
Role changing between Carrier and LPH for the QE's also probably requires a refit. So if you are using your single active QE as an LPH, you have no active carrier.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
That's not really a major issue, operational wise. In the last refit for HMS Ocean, Illustrious took over as helo carrier for the duration.
According to parliamentary hansard, Ocean's service life is due to expire in yr 2018. As to actual retirement, it could depend on whether a SLEP is affordable or undertaken. Usage rates are actually above planned rates but see no issue in terms of extending service life.
A major question is whether a replacement is affordable. Ocean didn't cost a lot though. Just 150.6m pounds.
That's not really a major issue, operational wise. In the last refit for HMS Ocean, Illustrious took over as helo carrier for the duration.
According to parliamentary hansard, Ocean's service life is due to expire in yr 2018. As to actual retirement, it could depend on whether a SLEP is affordable or undertaken. Usage rates are actually above planned rates but see no issue in terms of extending service life.
A major question is whether a replacement is affordable. Ocean didn't cost a lot though. Just 150.6m pounds.
Disagree - If the UK sticks with F35B they can operate a single QE along the lines of an enlarged WASP class (minus dock). The loss of the dock would be mitigated by an increase in helo numbers. OK not ideal for a full-on scrap against a first or second tier nation, but ideal for supporting a campaign against a failed state (Sierra Leone). Let's be honest a tier one scrap will be a NATO affair or the RN will form part of a larger US endeavor (Iran/NK). The one thing the UK is good at is adapting doctrine to suit financial constraints - they did it with the through the deck cruisers (Invisible class) and adapting rotary as airborne troop carriers (first ever to conduct a helo assualt - Suez crisis).
Using the QE as a WASP type asset, the Commando brigade could be carried in the Bay's. You could launch CAP (say 2-4 airframes) as normal from the QE to protect the fleet leaving an empty deck, the rotary assets would then be brought top-side and cross-decked to the Bay's, load RM sticks and then turn and burn 10 minutes prior to H-Hour. Additional F35B (2-4) + Apache (2-4) would then start launching from the QE (immediatey after the helo's leave for the Bay's) and begin the final high-tempo CAS/CAP operations (replacing the earlier CAP patrol) and operate in conjunction with the gun line. CO ARG would then send his first wave of helo's (Merlin/Chinook) from the Bay's to land in areas already secured by SBS/Brigade Recon (former ML's) deployed by Astute well in advance. Sounds like a logistical nightmare, but no different from trying to manage the myriad of fixed and rotary assets assigned to any flattop. By keeping Commando's on the Bay's, the QE will only be manned by the normal RN/FAA mix plus a small RM C&C HQ based in the rear conning tower, which is already designed specifically for flight operations.
A 65K tonne vessel should be able to support at least 8-12 F35B, 4-6 Apache and 12 Merlin/Chinook? Back that up with 2-4 x 16K tonne Bays and you still have a capable over the beach option. Each Bay has 2 -3 landing spots for Merlin, so no problem staging 8 between four vessels, or 1 x Chinook, 1 x Merlin per Bay.
We need to think out of the box and adapt. Saying bye-bye to the Albion's would be a sad loss, but compared to what the QE's bring to the table, a loss worth sacrificing. The critcal issue here is not the hull cost, but manning, operational costs and maintenance.
With the move towards long range helo's, UAV, UCAV the landing craft assault will steadily become a thing of the past except for maintaining the logistics chain once the beachhead is secure. The Bay's can fulfill this role supported by the merchant marine.
Name the last time a contested landing took place where heavy armour came ashore under direct fire in LC's? Korea if I recall.
Last edited:
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
I think the RN baseline amph capability to the falklands. That means 2 brigades or 6 regts. Having just 4 x Bays won't be considered sufficient and the QEs can't carry troops.
Neither are the bays = assault ships. They are transport vessels. One needs to understand the difference in RN auxiliary role and the royal marines. That means the first wave of royal marines will likely still come from assault ships ocean and the albions.
Don't think any of the assault ships have heavy armour in mind. Each LCU can carry only 1 MBT so that's not exactly major MBT landing force potential. btw, inchon had only 8 M-26s land on the first wave so that's not exactly majorly contested either...
Contested landing are only made when there's no other option. That's why landings since then from liberia, grenada, beirut etc aren't contested. Neither did the marines land in Kuwait 1991 for the same reason.
I think the RN baseline amph capability to the falklands. That means 2 brigades or 6 regts. Having just 4 x Bays won't be considered sufficient and the QEs can't carry troops.
Neither are the bays = assault ships. They are transport vessels. One needs to understand the difference in RN auxiliary role and the royal marines. That means the first wave of royal marines will likely still come from assault ships ocean and the albions.
Don't think any of the assault ships have heavy armour in mind. Each LCU can carry only 1 MBT so that's not exactly major MBT landing force potential. btw, inchon had only 8 M-26s land on the first wave so that's not exactly majorly contested either...
Contested landing are only made when there's no other option. That's why landings since then from liberia, grenada, beirut etc aren't contested. Neither did the marines land in Kuwait 1991 for the same reason.
The advantage today is the Falklands represents a static flat-top. In my humble opinion it will never be lost unless the UK draws down the existing garrison, CAP and GCHQ take thier eye off the ball. UK ISTAR over the South Atlantic is far more advanced and capable compared to what the UK had in 82 when its entire focus and force ORBAT was aimed at the Soviet threat. It's much less costly (blood and treasure) to reinforce than retake ground.
As I stated in my earlier post, my QE WASP concept is based around strategic raiding against failed states with limited offensive capabilties against modern hardware. Anything more substantial and it will be a Joint operation (NATO or US). Considering that 3 Commando works hand-in-clove with the Dutch Marines, any NATO sanctioned operation could see the RM using the Dutch Rotterdam (Albion look-alike) in conjuntion with the Bays. The QE if necessary could revert to being a dedicated strike platform.
RN auxiliary role has and will always be one of support, carrying assets to reinforce what has been put ashore by the front-line ships. Using the QE as a hybrid strike/LHP does not change this. Carriers / LHP's will always sit further offshore than LSD's. If you remove the Albions the strike force will be delivered by helo not LC in the first instance. The Bay's would only come ashore once the beach-head is secured. The critical issue being the capabilities of the Apache removes the need to rely on heavy armour support in the first wave. The ground would be held by lightly equipped troops using mortars. GMG, .50 and Javelin supported by F35/Apache and 4.5/155mm. No different from a Parachute battalion being dropped behind the lines to secure an air-bridge prior to reinforcements arriving by C17/C130J (fire support provided by 7RHA, not ship ot shore). In summary doctrine would have to be re-written to focus on a 16 Air-Assault type incursion, rather than a LC ramps down RM charge through the surf.
This new concept could become even more credible if the UK SF assets are reorganised as follows under a new SOG command (Army ORBAT):
Tier One: SAS/SBS
Tier Two: SFSG / SRR / Pathfinders & RM Recon
Tier Three: 2 & 3 Para / 40, 42, 45 Commando + All-Arms Support
Joint Helo Force (Land or Sea based)
Last edited:
According to the RN website, they'll have 1630 bunks & a ship crew of 682. That leaves 948 bunks for the air group & anyone else who may be aboard, even if you don't (as has been done in the past) put additional accommodation in hangars.
Assuming a reduced air group consisting entirely of helicopters, one could probably carry several hundred troops in reasonable comfort. Ocean has an aviation complement of only 208 for 18 helicopters. Double that (difficult - how many helicopters does the RN have?), & you still have 500+ spare bunks. I'm not sure of space for stowage of kit & additional stores, but since plans call for the QE class to operate in the LPH role if required, I expect provision has been made.
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
Fair enough. Actually I think Rik's suggestion is theoretically do-able. The only problem is that change won't happen due to structural inertia.
RFA is meant to transport troops not perform amph assaults. Changing that mind-set won't happen overnight. Asking the royal marines to throw out their assault ships, same difficulty.
As to how much and how long CVF can operate as a troopship, maybe they can.
The ark royal and illustrious could do the same during falklands but didn't. Same reason apply. They'll focus on air ops. That means no near approaches to shore, risking land-based defences etc.
So its not exactly 100% coverage. Dropping ocean and the albions will reduce some capability.
Fair enough. Actually I think Rik's suggestion is theoretically do-able. The only problem is that change won't happen due to structural inertia.
RFA is meant to transport troops not perform amph assaults. Changing that mind-set won't happen overnight. Asking the royal marines to throw out their assault ships, same difficulty.
As to how much and how long CVF can operate as a troopship, maybe they can.
The ark royal and illustrious could do the same during falklands but didn't. Same reason apply. They'll focus on air ops. That means no near approaches to shore, risking land-based defences etc.
So its not exactly 100% coverage. Dropping ocean and the albions will reduce some capability.
Your dockless Wasp is surely the LHA-6 USS America, which we would have been better of building 3 of rather than the CVF/Albions.
If we'd built them, & no Albions, we'd be desperately short of dock space for landing craft. We'd have three big LPH./STOVL carriers, & only the Bays, with their small docks, to put ashore anything that couldn't be carried in a helicopter. We'd go from the current 'plenty of docks, too little hangar space' to the opposite. I'm not convinced that would be an improvement. We'd swap one problem for another.
If you'd suggested that in combination with modified Bays with large docks, & maybe a couple more of 'em, & a modfied LHA-6 design with more flexible space (& of course a skl-jump) so that it could operate in an enhanced carrier mode, I might take the suggestion seriously.