The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Seaforth]

Thinking some more about the type of operations from the Falklands on to Iraq and Afghanistan and the Iran / N Korea threat, the recurring theme has been "not enough helicopters" for troop movement and support, and a big increase in asymmetrical threats.

I can see the following type of air group being very effective for QE class at a push, not even sure it would fit!

18 F35C for CAP, strike and recon
12 Apache for attack and anti helicopter
12 Wildcat for armed assault and battlefield recon
12 Merlin for assault, freight transfeer
6 Wilcat to take care of asymmetric threats and targets, including surface recon, board and search, attacking small craft
6 Merlin for ASW screen
3 or 4 Merlin for ASC

Of course the attack and assault helicopters could spend short periods of deployment on LPDs or at forward bases, returning to the carrier for maintenance.

So having a more helicopter oriented air group could be more what is needed....

 

[kev 99]

Yes, it's certainly the case that people who have been proclaiming that CVF wouldn't get built for years are now saying that they will be flogged off and that the plans for a single squadron of F35cs as aroutine deployment is ridculous, they seem to forget a couple of points:
1) Single squadron was always going to be the standard deployment for CVF anyway.
2) MOD doesn't see a squadron as much more of an administrative measurement these days anyway.
3) Why go to the trouble and cost of building them with cat and traps when we're going to flog them off? there's a good chance that depending on the source of the catapuilts it would restrict the number of customers that we could flog them to anyway.

Seaforth there's there is no way that airwing would fit on a CVF.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Seaforth there's there is no way that airwing would fit on a CVF.

Nor is there any need for it, that is what the LPD's and Helicopter Carrier is for.

 

[1805]

Nor is there any need for it, that is what the LPD's and Helicopter Carrier is for.

A 65,000t carrier should logically be able to carry that air group. BTW there isn't going to be a helicopter carrier.

I would be surpised if the RN didn't get one CVF, but quite public statements that the Government would have cancelled both if it had been cheaper means it would be unwise to assume either were guaranteed.

 

[kev 99]

I can't realistically see how a 65,000 tonne carrier should be able to deploy 18 fast jets and 52 helicopters.

 

[1805]

I can't realistically see how a 65,000 tonne carrier should be able to deploy 18 fast jets and 52 helicopters.

Carrier's typically can carry carrier a complement of about 1 aircraft to 1,000tons. Although a generalisation, 30 of the aircraft Seaforth quoted are actually quite small Wildcat/Apache. In practice a larger carrier should be able to operate more per/1,000t. I don't know the detail of the CVF design but unless it has very poor space management (which I think would be unlikely) that sort of complement does not seem that unrealistic.

If you look at the HMS Hermes last fixed wing complement on 28,000t she managed 30 aircraft.

Final CATOBAR air wing 1968-1970

801 sqn. 7 Buccaneer S2 Strike
893 sqn. 12 Sea Vixen FAW2 All-Weather Fighter
849 sqn. A flt. 4 Gannet AEW3 Airborne Early Warning
849 sqn. 1 Gannet COD4 Carrier Onboard Delivery
814 sqn. 5 Wessex HAS3 Anti-Submarine Warfare
Ships Flight 1 Wessex HAS1 Search and Rescue

Also the current CDG.

 

[kev 99]

Only 6 of those are helicopters, I'm well aware of the 1,000t per aircraft rule but you never see such a vast number of helicopters on a carrier carrying strike aircraft because the feeling is that they tend to get in the way of fixed wing operations. In addition it's worth pointing out that many state that the Nimitz class fixed wing operations have become more efficient with the smaller airgroups that they routinely deploy with since the end of the cold war.

 

[1805]

Only 6 of those are helicopters, I'm well aware of the 1,000t per aircraft rule but you never see such a vast number of helicopters on a carrier carrying strike aircraft because the feeling is that they tend to get in the way of fixed wing operations. In addition it's worth pointing out that many state that the Nimitz class fixed wing operations have become more efficient with the smaller airgroups that they routinely deploy with since the end of the cold war.

I would agree with you on both counts, I was just stating it was possible not that it was desirable. I am sadly coming to the conclusion, we would have been better off to replace the Harrier with more Harriers!

 

[gf0012-aust]

I can't realistically see how a 65,000 tonne carrier should be able to deploy 18 fast jets and 52 helicopters.

It can't, even if they were all Squirrel sized.

They just don't have the requisite space below deck to cash and carry a mixed and bag and in that volume.

If its acting as a one time ferry and its not warfighting then yes, if its meant to be a warload - I seriously doubt it.

This is a vessel thats half way between the Midway and Forrestal, and where aircraft weight, size and supoort constructs have grown accordingly.

whatever you carry you also have to maintain/sustain

 

[Padfoot]

For example scrapping the carrier force forever, the carriers will be built, yes but unfortunately without the white ensign, they will be actively marketed around the globe and finally if not sold they will be mothballed until some buyer is found even for a bargain price, the proof is that is not credible the plan to maintain 1 strike carrier of nearly 70000 tons with a dozen fighters on board, is ridiculous and the demonstration that the british politicians are ready to leave Britain without carriers forever, after all if the R.N. will have no strike capability during the next 10 years why not to cancel this capability forever, Richard Beedall wrote some years ago that tye R.N. was going to be a coastal force in the long term, unfortunately and looking at the present and future will not be so long term.
It,s clear that for british politicians defence is a secondary matter, any major country have suffered such a wild defence cuts in the last 30 years if things follow this way Britain will pass from a global military power to a secondary power overpassed by Italy or even Spain.

To be overtaken by Spain, UK defence cuts would have to be around 60% not the 7% that has taken place. And besides, you'll find other European countries have had larger cuts, France, for example, has had cuts around 10%. I'd be amazed if Spain with all its problems isn't making cuts as well.

No, the UK will remain Europe's premier military power for a while yet. No need to fear, overlander.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

The above does not take into account exchange rates. GBP has been continually devalued over the past 3 years (US$2 to 1 in 2008, now US$1.5 to 1.6) whereas the Euro has maintained its strength.

Many countries in Europe aren't hobbled by inefficient procurement where cancellation fees are significant, high soldier pay, irrelevant weaponry eg nukes that require high maintenance + replacement cost and actual war deployment expenses (£Xbn a year spent on iraq & afghanistan for the past decade).

Turkey may spend 4 times less but its air force fighter numbers has surpassed RAF after the retirements of the F-3 and Harriers. RAF now only left with declining numbers of GR-4s & a few typhoons. Turkey will also have more stealth fighters in a decade's time. That contrasts the efficiency of expenditure.

 

[Padfoot]

The above does not take into account exchange rates. GBP has been continually devalued over the past 3 years (US$2 to 1 in 2008, now US$1.5 to 1.6) whereas the Euro has maintained its strength.

Many countries in Europe aren't hobbled by inefficient procurement where cancellation fees are significant, high soldier pay, irrelevant weaponry eg nukes that require high maintenance + replacement cost and actual war deployment expenses (£Xbn a year spent on iraq & afghanistan for the past decade).

Turkey may spend 4 times less but its air force fighter numbers has surpassed RAF after the retirements of the F-3 and Harriers. RAF now only left with declining numbers of GR-4s & a few typhoons. Turkey will also have more stealth fighters in a decade's time. That contrasts the efficiency of expenditure.

You're clutching a bit, weasel. What are the exact numbers? 300 fast attack for the RAF with 100 Typhoon to come. 100 F35C? Tornado phased out over the next decade. What are we ultimately going to get, 250 fast attack planes? I'm not sure if you can count all those old 60s phantoms as front line for Turkey, but that's just me.

And you can't dismiss the nuclear deterrent as irrelevant, that's silly. Operations don't come from the military budget, do they? I'm sure that's the case.

I think an off-the-shelf military(such as Turkey has) for Britain would be a huge step in the wrong direction.

Exchange rate? Being calculated in US dollars already accounts for that, no?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Operations don't come from the military budget, do they? I'm sure that's the case.

agree, pretty sure they come from General Revenue

I think an off-the-shelf military..........

I've been involved with a number of COTS solutions for military application - and they are not the panacea for procurement ills that is assumed by many. they can be an absolute nightmare for integration, and those navies that have gone to hybrid hulls with commercial status have often been bitterly disappointed. the one shining light in this has been the danes with the absalom, but they are also a young vessel that still needs review across some of the other through life support vectors yet....

Exchange rate? Being calculated in US dollars already accounts for that, no?

programs are also calculated with a degree of fat to deal with historical exchange rate fluctuations - the fat can be in the order of 30% to allow for variations - and then there is the contingency factor - contingency lowest is usually 10%, I've seen it as high as 45% - and thats calculated against the identified risk. As risk is a significant element in selecting a solution, its never far from an assessment teams mandated selection criteria (and that includes the engineers, independent reviewers, exchequer staff and operators)

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

You're clutching a bit, weasel. What are the exact numbers? 300 fast attack for the RAF with 100 Typhoon to come. 100 F35C? Tornado phased out over the next decade. What are we ultimately going to get, 250 fast attack planes? I'm not sure if you can count all those old 60s phantoms as front line for Turkey, but that's just me.

240+ Turkish F-16s of which 218 upgraded under the 2004 CCIP w JHMCS. How many typhoons will the RAF be getting? 160. The funny thing is that Turkey opted to continue with the F-16s rather than buy Typhoons.

Its not exactly consistent to argue that F-4s can be discounted but Tornados which started their design in the 60s are still fast attack aircraft that counts towards the total. One should also read about turkish variants and upgrade eg kurnass/simsek/isis upgrades.

As to the claims of the RAF getting 100 F-35Cs. I'll wait for the official announcement rather than make guesses. Ironic since Turkey is one of the few countries opting to increase their buy (from 100 to 120 F-35s).

For 4 times more budget, one would think that the air force should be significantly larger.

 

[swerve]

240+ Turkish F-16s of which 218 upgraded under the 2004 CCIP w JHMCS. How many typhoons will the RAF be getting? 160. The funny thing is that Turkey opted to continue with the F-16s rather than buy Typhoons.

Not really funny. If you're intending to buy something else for the long term, introducing a new interim type into your inventory in relatively small numbers has so many logistical & operational drawbacks that it's unlikely to be worthwhile unless you're in desperate & urgent need of specific capabilities it has.

It's hard to see Turkey being in desperate need of the Typhoon's capabilities before it gets F-35.

 

[swerve]

The above does not take into account exchange rates. GBP has been continually devalued over the past 3 years (US$2 to 1 in 2008, now US$1.5 to 1.6) whereas the Euro has maintained its strength.

Euro has gone from a peak of $1.60 to about $1.30, i.e. a drop of almost 20%. Pound has gone from a peak of $2 to about $1.60, i.e. a 20% drop.

You were saying?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Euro has gone from a peak of $1.60 to about $1.30, i.e. a drop of almost 20%. Pound has gone from a peak of $2 to about $1.60, i.e. a 20% drop.

You were saying?

You might want to check directly on GBP vs Euro exchange rates. Historical rates are available at several websites eg Exchange Rates - x-rates.

Sterling has gone from 0.6 to 0.84 to a euro (and last yr it hit 0.9 sparking claims of parity as an inevitability). If you want to insist that the sterling has not devalued over the years esp against the euro, go ahead.

 

[swerve]

You might want to check directly on GBP vs Euro exchange rates. Historical rates are available at several websites eg Exchange Rates - x-rates.

Sterling has gone from 0.6 to 0.84 to a euro (and last yr it hit 0.9 sparking claims of parity as an inevitability). If you want to insist that the sterling has not devalued over the years esp against the euro, go ahead.

Where do you think I got my figures from?

I didn't say that sterling hasn't devalued over the years (but it has also revalued - depends on the dates you use - see below), nor that it hasn't devalued against the euro (ditto). What I disputed was that the devaluations you referred to had occurred in the period you referred to, i.e. the last 3 years. Within that period, there have been fluctuations, but the current & peak rates I gave you are correct.

The peak pound/euro rate you refer to was from 2000 to 2002, not in the last 3 years.

The pound's now at almost exactly the same level against the dollar as it was 8, 10, 15 & 21 years ago. 3, 4, & 20 years ago, it was significantly higher. In the last 20 years it's also been a bit lower, e.g. 9, 17 & 18 years ago.

 

[1805]

You might want to check directly on GBP vs Euro exchange rates. Historical rates are available at several websites eg Exchange Rates - x-rates.

Sterling has gone from 0.6 to 0.84 to a euro (and last yr it hit 0.9 sparking claims of parity as an inevitability). If you want to insist that the sterling has not devalued over the years esp against the euro, go ahead.

Its not the pound that is weak, its the Euro that is unsustainably strong. It will either have to devalue or break up.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Just to substantiate the increasingly wider directions both countries are taking, Turkey defense minister responds in parliament to state that 116 F-35s may be acquired.

Turkey May Buy Up to 116 F-35s: Defense Minister - Defense News

RAF trend?

RAF cuts 'worry' senior commander - Defence Management

"Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell expressed concern at government plans to cut the number of fast-jet squadrons from 12 to eight during an interview with Defense News.

Air Vice-Marshal Bagwell also expressed concern that Britain might end up with six fast-jet squadrons by 2020, which "might not be quite enough".

The RAF in the next ten years "will be a six-squadron world; that's what's on the books," he said, adding that he expected five squadrons of Typhoon and one of Joint Strike Fighters by 2020."

So much for Europe's premier military power....