kev 99
Member
I'm unaware of any capability for Scalp Naval to hit moving targets, I very much doubt it is is being explored as the French are installing Exocet Block 3 on it's FREMMS.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
I know that right now the seeker is only capable of attacking fixed installations but installing a modern seeker which is able to lock on ships and can cope with countermeasures shouldn't be that much of a problem, no?
The French don't need to do this as they still have a relatively modern SSM available in their home market.
The French don't need to do this as they still have a relatively modern SSM available in their home market.
That is SOOOO wrong. Building a carrier is a little bit more complex than that.
Yes its over simplistic, but even so the RN was not being absoluting honest by claiming it need that size for 36-40 airgroup. Also ships have a habit of gaining size, I bet they will actually be well over 70,000t. If they can't carry a similar complement to a massively hacked about from numerous refits Midway, then you have to say why?
I not an expert but for me it would be a big flashing light saying to me someones not telling the whole truth.
There is no flashing light and they were telling the truth. Your airgroup comparisons are just plain wrong. So is your assessment of the changes to Midway.
Firstly on aircraft. They don’t all require the same level of support from the carrier. Heavy strike fighters like the JSF require a lot more fuel and support than a light ASW plane. All of these examples you have used have not been benchmarked for the type of aircraft. You can not operate 40 F-35Cs from a MN Charles de Gaulle or HMS Eagle and so on.
As to Midway’s air group and CVF they are basically the same: ~40 strike fighters, ~10 support aircraft/helos. Midway grew in displacement via her refits because her hull was big enough to handle it. Her waterline length and beam were basically identical to the CVF. As more weight was put on her she just sat deeper in the water but had the stability margin to take it.
Your penchant for simplifying things has a distinctly negative effect on the quality of your analysis. Have you considered a career in journalism?
Carrier Alliance/ QinetiQ have computer modelled the QE design to death and leveraged off the design lessons re-learnt during the T45/Astute programme. There's no hidden conspiracy theory, the current size allows for incremental growth, better to have capacity built-in from day one (steel is cheap) than having to try and take a Tardis approach later on. Retro-fitting is always more expensive. Having more space makes it much easier to move kit around and allows for greater versatility to cover for a myriad of changing missions (strike, LHP, humanitarian, commando carrier). Unlike the US, the RN has to adapt and make do with limited platforms, QE has to be all things to all men and will be treated as a true purple asset. It should be scene as bigger WASP class with F35C instead of B.
People may argue it's too large for a flight of 12-24 F35C during piece time, unfortunately it has to double as a LHP, so any spare capacity will be taken up by RN/RM lift unless the country's finances allow for an OCEAN replacement.
People may argue it's too large for a flight of 12-24 F35C during piece time, unfortunately it has to double as a LHP, so any spare capacity will be taken up by RN/RM lift unless the country's finances allow for an OCEAN replacement.
Sometimes things are that simple. I can't find the exact complement of the Midway, but figures range from 65-75 (although I did find a photo of her in 1974 with c27 F4 & A6 on the deck alone). The Midways/Eagle/Hermes where all designed in an age of slower, lighter piston aircraft and needed massive rebuilts to take angled decks and steam catapults, so would be at a big disadvantage to a purpose built ship.
I agree a bigger ship is going to be much easier for air operations than a smaller ships, but then why not build a 100,000t ships? Why not because there is not the money.
The RN was replacing c40 FA2. A 1 for 1 replacement with the F35b or c or Rafale for that matter would be a huge improvement? An increase to say 60-70 aircraft a completely different game.
Are you saying a 50,000t carrier could not have operated 36 F35 + 14 support aircraft?
Incidently the F4, A6 & Buccaneer where also hungry and heavy aircraft. They had poorer launch handling than the F18 so one would expect also inferior to F35?
I am not against big ships but by going for such a huge leap in capability and then compounding the mistake by trying to get both through so close together, all they have achieved is to put the whole project at risk. They will very likely lose one if not both.
Last edited:
You have answered your own question. The RN needed something a bit bigger than the WASP without the dock, what prey could such a wonderous vessel look like.....the USS America??
Also has some bright spark in the RN looked around at what everyone else was building and had the wisdom to fit even a deck level hanger for a modest 6-8 helicopters on the Albion and Bulwark we wouldn't need a replacement for HMS Ocean. It was I guess just about acceptable in1990 not to have that vision, when Ocean built, but to repeat the mistake in 2002 is mad.
The irony is that had they built a 50,000 ship similar to the LHA-6 with a ram/catapult option, they could have got 3 spaced out over 25 years. A 50,000t design would also have been more attactive for export (India/Brazil).
Last edited:
Because we have nowhere to build it, nowhere to dock it, & no naval bases which can take it, & because 'bigger is better' only works up to the point where other factors outweigh it.
Also has some bright spark in the RN looked around at what everyone else was building and had the wisdom to fit even a deck level hanger for a modest 6-8 helicopters on the Albion and Bulwark we wouldn't need a replacement for HMS Ocean. It was I guess just about acceptable in1990 not to have that vision, when Ocean built, but to repeat the mistake in 2002 is mad.
The reason why Albion and Bulwark do not have hangers is that they were designed to carry landing craft, Royal Marines, armour et al and supporting equipment required for a beach landing, meaning both vessels would be required to enter a littoral environment, which carries a substantially higher level of risk. The LHP (OCEAN) was designed to remain much further out to sea with the designated Invincible class carrier hosting CAP/CAS assets. Helo's would then turn and burn or enter a flight pattern allowing for a coordinated assault with the landing craft without the vessel having to enter a potentially hostile environment close to shore subject to fire from land artillery / mortars etc.
A hybrid Albion hosting a dogs breakfast of landing craft and helo's was never part of the UK's amphibious ambitions. By adding a hanger (six Junglies) you would suck up space needed for supporting assets required to fly, man, fuel and service the airframes, which otherwise would be taken up by the resident Commando and supporting engineers, tankies etc. There is absolutely zero advantage of bringing such helo assets close to shore in the first wave. Those countries that did add hangers (Dutch) had little choice because they have no other maritime assets capable of hosting and supporting a large rotary support wing.
You can't simply pluck vessels out of a country's inventary and criticise there design without understanding the bigger picture relating to how they would be used in a conflict and how they would dovetail with other maritime assets. You may want to consider signing-up for the following which covers how LHP/D's should be used in a modern context.
http://www.amphibiousoperations.com/Event.aspx?id=397396
UK Amphib landings would typically take the following phased approach:
Phase One: SBS undertake covert beach recce's and set-up covert OP's
Phase Two: CAP/CAS provide top-cover (Harrier, Apache and in the future F35C) for the overt landing phase
Phase Three: MCM, Albion & Bulwark support primary 3 Commando landing party to secure beach head supported by Junglies carrying RM assault parties dropping in the rear blocking access routes to the beach
Phase Four: Bays bring in Armoured Infantry Units and supporting equipment to back-up Commando unit once the beach head is secure
Whilst all this is going on Invincible/Ocean would remain outside the landing box protected by FFG's / DDG's .In future this will be a single QE Class acting as a joint LHP/Strike Carrier hosting F35C/Wildcat/Merlin/Apache.
The reason why Albion and Bulwark do not have hangers is that they were designed to carry landing craft, Royal Marines, armour et al and supporting equipment required for a beach landing, meaning both vessels would be required to enter a littoral environment, which carries a substantially higher level of risk. The LHP (OCEAN) was designed to remain much further out to sea with the designated Invincible class carrier hosting CAP/CAS assets. Helo's would then turn and burn or enter a flight pattern allowing for a coordinated assault with the landing craft without the vessel having to enter a potentially hostile environment close to shore subject to fire from land artillery / mortars etc.
A hybrid Albion hosting a dogs breakfast of landing craft and helo's was never part of the UK's amphibious ambitions. By adding a hanger (six Junglies) you would suck up space needed for supporting assets required to fly, man, fuel and service the airframes, which otherwise would be taken up by the resident Commando and supporting engineers, tankies etc. There is absolutely zero advantage of bringing such helo assets close to shore in the first wave. Those countries that did add hangers (Dutch) had little choice because they have no other maritime assets capable of hosting and supporting a large rotary support wing.
You can't simply pluck vessels out of a country's inventary and criticise there design without understanding the bigger picture relating to how they would be used in a conflict and how they would dovetail with other maritime assets. You may want to consider signing-up for the following which covers how LHP/D's should be used in a modern context.
http://www.amphibiousoperations.com/Event.aspx?id=397396
UK Amphib landings would typically take the following phased approach:
Phase One: SBS undertake covert beach recce's and set-up covert OP's
Phase Two: CAP/CAS provide top-cover (Harrier, Apache and in the future F35C) for the overt landing phase
Phase Three: MCM, Albion & Bulwark support primary 3 Commando landing party to secure beach head supported by Junglies carrying RM assault parties dropping in the rear blocking access routes to the beach
Phase Four: Bays bring in Armoured Infantry Units and supporting equipment to back-up Commando unit once the beach head is secure
Whilst all this is going on Invincible/Ocean would remain outside the landing box protected by FFG's / DDG's .In future this will be a single QE Class acting as a joint LHP/Strike Carrier hosting F35C/Wildcat/Merlin/Apache.
weasel1962
New Member
Factually incorrect as that relates to weight rather than size. In Midways' case, it was the addition of elevators/crane etc that contributed to overall weight that needed stabilisation that ended up with hull adjustments.
Its actually an exception rather than the norm. Most ships end up with roughly the same displacement (or weight rather than size) upon retirement.
Absolutely agree. The large landing deck would no doubt have been seriously compromised by the addition of hangar space.
During a landing what matters most one assumes is the efficiency (and safety) with which the landing force can be landed. A larger landing deck on the ship carrying the landing force helps that. Empty hangar space (and aviation servicing resources) on the ship carrying the landing force detracts from it.
Hmmm...
Someone doesn't know the historical (or is it hysterical) background on Albion & Bulwark....
Navy Matters | Albion Class LPD(R)
As intimated in the link, Originally the class had a hanger in the design, but that (& a complete deck, if my memory serves me well), were 'cut', to expedite cost savings.
SA :duel
This is such a inflexible approach, which operationally hampers the use of the Albion/Bulwark independently, as there is only on Ocean. For the minor hinderance in the very narrow operation you describe the RN has added cost, reduced flexibility and finished any export potential. If it had built 2 Oceans with docks in the 1990s we would have removed 2 ships from the crowed 2000s builing frenzy and been ahead of the field on the JCI/Mistral. The LPH is a dated concept which is why navys have followed the USN example with the WASPs such as Spain (JCI), RAN (Camberra), France/Russia (Mistral).
Before anyone starts the LHA-6 is a very different concept designed to operate F35 can afford to take such an approach.
I do know the history, but that is the wrong way round, you don't build a LPH and then ask for helicopter decks on the Albion & Bulwark, you do it the other way round as described above. To seek to replace Ocean would just be to repeat the mistake.
The LPD need to become much more versitile multi role platforms, able to act as mother ships to patrol boats (CB90 type) MCM helicopters/ROV/SF raiding and crisis/relief as well as full scale assault. Also they need to become joint assets, I could not find a photo online of a Challenger being landed by the RN (not sure if there have been excerices), but stacks of Dutch/Turkish/Russian etc examples. This is not good apparantly the RN struggled to demostrate the value of these very important ships probably because there roles was described in simplistic terms as riksavage's post above.
He's a picture of one being loaded...
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/LCU-Mk10-021.jpg
Thanks for posting this, very good to see. Looking again at this photo, I'm not sure if it is just initial trials. I can't find any reference of Albion/Bulwark undertaking a beach landing exercise with MBTs
Last edited:
The pic is of a Skorpion light tank & is from just before Albion's 1st sea trial. It was taken while the ship was still berthed in the construction yard. It was the same weekend they proved the different types of landing craft could fit, as well as seeing how different veichles coped with being on the ship, as well as proving the well-deck to flight deck internal ramp.
I believe the picture might even originally have taken by BAE, as I remember seeing it on their website a few years ago, but I've checked, & it's no longer there...
I also thought they might be on the RN website, but it's "Down for Maintenance" & has been since some numpty did a 'cyber-attack' on it to prove that it had 'vunerabilities', earlier this month.
Hacker Claims Full Compromise of Royal Navy Website - Softpedia
SA
Last edited:
I think it is a Challenger without skirts and the turret reversed.