kev 99
Member
Agree on the type of ship but 2 would have been more realistic.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
- USS Tarawa (LHA-1) launched in 1973
- I didn't mean build an actual USS Wasp class (old design, with crew heavy steam turbines, and USN manpower levels), I mean just the concept of dock & through flight deck, with UK design and crew levels, and ram.
- OK even if you exclude HMS Ocean crews as it will unlikely be replaced, 3 x 45,000 (25knot) ships v 2 LPD (325 crew), & 2 x CVF (679 crew exc air group). I can't see it being as much, I think the Camberra's will be c360 crew, say 550 + the same air group, but if you add in the need for a LPH then far greater.
- Again excluding LPH replacement, I can't see that 2 separate designs, 4 hulls, c167,000t c 1 design, 3 hulls, 135,000t can be cheaper.
- The USMC ships are designed with much bigger docks (they can hold 12 LCMs!!) and far greater numbers of marines than the UK is ever likely to deploy, so the dock/size and accommodation would have to be far less, and the aviation facilities better than an Invincible (3 would be in the region of what is claimed for 2 CVF).
There would be scope to have 50,000t ships and still cheaper. Merging the LPH, LPD & CV roles, would have made a clean far more flexible fleet. Better than the NM, 1 (maybe 2) CV & 3 LHD.
BTW still an increase tonnaged (3 x CVH + 2 x LPD (Interpid's) = c 85,000t, even with Ocean only 105,000t)
Last edited:
kev 99
Member
You and me are going to have to disagree on this, looking at the specs of the USS America I positively don't feel that the UK can build an LPD that meets the requirements of a strike carrier as were set out in the SDR and have it fulfill the role of an LPD as well, at least without an fairly big increase (bigger than the 5,000t you're talking about) in displacement over the America class.
1805, I can think of at least 2 times in the last few years where you rattled off the same argument, and were not convincing then either.
You say the RN should have been more innovative and combined the roles of a CV, LPH and dock on one ship? Considering that in 1982 the RN took a right hammering trying the very risky business of amphibious landings, and nearly lost against a modest opponent. I would have thought that attempting to do what you propose would have been seen as more lunacy than innovative.
Why would you choose to place your flag, HQ, primary command and control asset and very visible symbol of UK plc in harms way, docked down with 10,000 tonnes of seawater close to a hostile coastline? How would history have viewed Admiral Woodward if he had sailed Hermes or Invincible into San Carlos, lunacy in a 28,000 or 20,000 tonne ship, even more so in a 40,000 tonne USS Wasp-alike.
It may look sexy to the USMC, but they are supported by a Nimitz or two with CAP, AEW, AEGIS escorts, SSN's , B1, B2, B52 etc etc etc.
Carriers should stay out of harms way. A Wasp class in amphibious configuration carries 6-8 Harriers, just enough for close air support, not enough to even maintain a CAP, for that you would need a dozen, even in sea control configuration, they only carry 20 harriers, mainly due to the vast space the dock and vehicle deck eats into the 40,000 tonne, so for twice the ship displacement you barely get any improvement on the Invincible class and as Kev 99 has pointed out, the USN has ditched the dock on the latest builds. Bringing such a high value vessel in close to unload marines if madness.
Numerous studies were carried out to establish the optimum size of a ship to safely and efficiently move the fixed wing and helos around, Wasp at 257m, CV at 280m, beam of 32m, compared to 39m, but much of the displacement on CV is due to the sponsoon's which provide a very wide and efficient platform, the size difference isn't massive, but the flexibility is. Ask the French if in hindsight they should have made the CdG a little bigger?
Running 3 ships is going to cost more than running 2, switching roles in refits costs money, building docks, servicing and maintaining the docks costs money. Building the Bay class cost very little, and we could perhaps do with more (If MARS get knocked out in a Korean yard for a bargain, how much for a Bay plus with a hanger?). If there was a real shooting war, I would rather put a Bay in harms way, than my 40-50,000 tonne carrier.
I think the RN got things about right. There is or was no need to try and mimic the USMC because we are not the USMC and will never have a fraction of the support the USMC will get. The UK just needs to support 3 Commando brigade, not a 100,000 strong force.
You say the RN should have been more innovative and combined the roles of a CV, LPH and dock on one ship? Considering that in 1982 the RN took a right hammering trying the very risky business of amphibious landings, and nearly lost against a modest opponent. I would have thought that attempting to do what you propose would have been seen as more lunacy than innovative.
Why would you choose to place your flag, HQ, primary command and control asset and very visible symbol of UK plc in harms way, docked down with 10,000 tonnes of seawater close to a hostile coastline? How would history have viewed Admiral Woodward if he had sailed Hermes or Invincible into San Carlos, lunacy in a 28,000 or 20,000 tonne ship, even more so in a 40,000 tonne USS Wasp-alike.
It may look sexy to the USMC, but they are supported by a Nimitz or two with CAP, AEW, AEGIS escorts, SSN's , B1, B2, B52 etc etc etc.
Carriers should stay out of harms way. A Wasp class in amphibious configuration carries 6-8 Harriers, just enough for close air support, not enough to even maintain a CAP, for that you would need a dozen, even in sea control configuration, they only carry 20 harriers, mainly due to the vast space the dock and vehicle deck eats into the 40,000 tonne, so for twice the ship displacement you barely get any improvement on the Invincible class and as Kev 99 has pointed out, the USN has ditched the dock on the latest builds. Bringing such a high value vessel in close to unload marines if madness.
Numerous studies were carried out to establish the optimum size of a ship to safely and efficiently move the fixed wing and helos around, Wasp at 257m, CV at 280m, beam of 32m, compared to 39m, but much of the displacement on CV is due to the sponsoon's which provide a very wide and efficient platform, the size difference isn't massive, but the flexibility is. Ask the French if in hindsight they should have made the CdG a little bigger?
Running 3 ships is going to cost more than running 2, switching roles in refits costs money, building docks, servicing and maintaining the docks costs money. Building the Bay class cost very little, and we could perhaps do with more (If MARS get knocked out in a Korean yard for a bargain, how much for a Bay plus with a hanger?). If there was a real shooting war, I would rather put a Bay in harms way, than my 40-50,000 tonne carrier.
I think the RN got things about right. There is or was no need to try and mimic the USMC because we are not the USMC and will never have a fraction of the support the USMC will get. The UK just needs to support 3 Commando brigade, not a 100,000 strong force.
the concerned
Active Member
Is there any reason why HMS Ocean can't be upgraded to last another 10-20yrs look at the US carriers how long have they lasted.
It's possible to keep any ship going if there is money to spend on it, but a point will be reached where it would be cheaper to build a new one than try and upgrade, refurb and source parts for an older model.
USN carriers are built to a very high standard to take battle damage, just youtube the documentary on the sinking of the Oriskany as a reef, can't find the link now but there is a schematic online of the Saratoga when they were tendering for disposal, they are built to last at a vast expense, whereas Ocean was a cheap and cheerful effort based on commercial principles.
As Hambro said, Ocean was built as a cheap expedient stop gap. Whereas QEC are being built to last 50 years. Indeed despite what Kev said, I believe that (at least in some places) QEC has thicker steel than most warships.
Also, can we afford the running costs for Ocean as well as QEC? I suspect not
Most of the above has alreay been covered in my earlier post. The costs in particular are not based on 3 v 2 ships as you say (3 v 4 assuming, no LPH replacement). The capacity c18 F35b should have been achievable in a 45,000t ship, (look at the heavy assault gear a Wasp can carry, it's huge) if the assault capability is at the level of the 18,500t LPD built (still a third greater, if 3 ships v 2 LPD so it could even be reduced if matching it was the sole objective).
The Falklands was pretty unique, the losses where largely a result of: most escorts having no effective AA weapons, no AEW, and lack of fighters armed with BVR missiles, all these were put right fairly swiftly after, although the RN has carelessly found itself without any fighters since 2007. They would all be present in what I would have proposed, but of course the fighter capability gap would be less likely as the funding would be a lot more robust, than the CVF/LPD model chosen.
I doubt the situation in San Carlos in 1982 was what the RN planned at all for any ships. I would not see a 45,000t ship or a Bay in that position, greater use of helicopters, with LCM putting distance between ship and shore, it's the whole purpose of giving greater preference to the aviation side.
"All over the papers" :smilie
UK newspapers are terrible with anything factual, especially defence matters.
kev 99
Member
You don't think I'm aware of this? You think I would have posted it if I didn't believe it was at least partially true?
Yes the Falklands was pretty unique, the situation the RN faced in that period was a huge Soviet SSN threat and to support elements of 3 Commando Brigade on the Norway Coast, so LSD's the old Roundtable class, even RORO's were required. The mission certainly didn't require hybrid carrier and amphibious ships, not when funds had to be found for frigates, subs, Challenger and Warrior an everything else a cold war stand off requires. The USMC does as it is cash rich and has worldwide tasking with 100,000 personel.
The RN studies identified a requirement to surge 100 F35B sorties a day for a short period from one ship. That is not just about the number of aircraft on a ship, it's about how they can be moved, fuelled, armed, launched and recovered and the optimum was on a QE sized fat deck, 280m, by 39m bulging to 70m, and should the french ever build a second, it will be of similar size to that, why would that be do you think?
You just will not get that tempo of air ops from a hull form like the Wasp, because of the requirements of having a floodable rear end and making the docking stable, requires a ship of a certain shape, you lose speed, 20 knots on the Juan Carlos, 23 knots on the Wasp. The decks don't get the bulges that traditional carriers get, I assume there are sound technical reasons for that (top weight when wallowing about full of sea water), so on a Wasp you get 257m by 32 m on 40,000 tonnes, 230m by 32m on the Juan Carlos (with a hefty ramp), Illustrious was 209m by 36m on 20,000 tonnes, Hermes at 236m to 45m max on 28,000 (and the extra carrying capacity was critical), so pure carriers seem to have more hanger space and similar sized deck area. A wasp class with twice the displacement is only about one and a half helo landing spots longer than an Invincible and actually narrower.
Aircraft sizes have gone from Sea King, Wessex and Harrier, to F35, Merlin and Chinook, much bigger and heavier and although unlikely for us, UCAV rotary or V22 even larger.
18 fixed wing aircraft is not enough, a QE can do more on one deck than 2 40,000 smaller ships can do and I can't see how it would be more efficient in any way shape or form, not when smaller 15,000-20,000 LPH and LSD's could be knocked out cheaply, the two roles are distinct, combining them is a compromise only used by the US or nations that can't afford vessels of both types, we can, we have had both in service performing perfectly well for some time.
Ocean cost £234m at todays prices, giving some 6000m squared of deck space on my dodgy maths, 235 crew minus airgroup, a Bay comes in at £150m with 65 crew.
USS America was $3.2 in dollars, or £2 billion in real money,crew of 900 and thats for a Wasp minus the dock, yes delete many of the expensive US weapons and systems for a cheaper build but still.
But considering UK plc's inability to bring in projects on time and cost, what is the cost of your proposed ship?
QE as a concept was sound , £3.6billion for two ships, it was delay caused by politicians that rocketed the costs.
As far as I can see all the points have been answered, I would only add:
- I am not talking about an exact copy of a Wasp, even the JC1 at 27,000t the dock is a large proportion of the ship.
- You have no real evidence 2 decks & 4 lifts could out perform 3 decks & 6 lifts
- The point you miss, mine suggestion is more flexible and much more affordable, even if the CVFs are better (lets disagree on this one) the cost was clearly unaffordable, particularly when you look at the massive increase in the assault capability.
- The Roundtables were actually cold war warriers designed to support armoured movements between Marchwood and the BOAR
Ocean was ordered for £144 mn in 1993. That would be £229 mn in 2010 prices (about £240 mn today), but it wasn't the full cost. Fully equipped, she's reckoned to have cost £200 mn. Extrapolating that from when she was commissioned to 2010 gives £284 mn, or about £300 mn today.
On top of that, we have to take into account that she was underpriced, & underbuilt. The losing bid was for £210 mn, & maybe that was what she should have cost.
The Bay class, on the other hand, ended up costing far more than it should. Allowing for the work Swan Hunter did on design & other services for all four ships, & completion & remedial work done by BAe on Swan Hunter ships, the two Swan ships accounted for about 60% of the cost. £125 mn was probably what they should have cost but for the Swan fiasco. In todays prices, about £160 mn.
BTW, according to the 2012 US budget, USS America & her sister ships are even more expensive than your figure.
Anixtu
New Member
A cross channel ferry could have done that. LSLs were for global operations when we still had territories east of Suez. They then proved useful for RM's "reinforce Norway" mission.
They did a lot of Antwerp runs, but that wasn't their raison d'etre.
I see you are still building lego ships,
From your earlier post, "- Again excluding LPH replacement, I can't see that 2 separate designs, 4 hulls, c167,000t c 1 design, 3 hulls, 135,000t can be cheaper.
- The USMC ships are designed with much bigger docks (they can hold 12 LCMs!!) and far greater numbers of marines than the UK is ever likely to deploy, so the dock/size and accommodation would have to be far less, and the aviation facilities better than an Invincible (3 would be in the region of what is claimed for 2 CVF).
There would be scope to have 50,000t ships and still cheaper. Merging the LPH, LPD & CV roles, would have made a clean far more flexible fleet. Better than the NM, 1 (maybe 2) CV & 3 LHD. "
In summary your hindsight version of history replaces any attempt to replace the 3 Invincibles with 2 QE's but we would get 3 45,000 tonne ships that do all the sea control and amphibious work?
When are they ordered? the decision to replace Fearless and Intrepid was made in 1991 with tenders around 1994 for the 2 Albions, the invitation to tender for Ocean was made in 1992. The Invincibles were commissioned in 1980,1982 and 1985.
Was it likely that the UK would ditch perfectly good carriers not much more than a decade old, to build a new class of 3 ships of complexity (CVS plus dock, vehicle deck and accommodation for troops) of a type that only the USN could at the time afford, at a time when the UK Govt was still searching for savings in budgets? I don't think it is, nor do I think that UK industry at that time could have given a very precise cost estimate, particularly as no ship of that type had ever been built in the UK. As Swerve pointed out my wiki research for costings was inaccurate by some degree.
Onto your lego ship, so now it could have less amphibious capability than the US ships? how much less?10%, 25%, 50%. would it be an Invincible with a bolt on Albion? 350 marines? 4 LCU. What engines would you chose? diesel for 18 knots, or in the time period, do you go with Olympus? Invincible had 4 GT's, how many in your 50,000 tonne ship? 6? 8? they are thirsty beasts.
The question I would ask is why not propose a traditional carrier, maybe of conventional propulsion , the size of CdG, which would be a relatively sound point to argue? although the RN did the study, 45,000 lost to 65,000 tonne on efficiency and future growth margins at least you would be in some sound company. Instead you are arguing for about the third time for a complex ship, with unproven advantages , ordered in a time period that doesn't seem to fit.
The replacement for Ocean and the Albions if there ever is the budget, should be along the lines if the Mistral, or at least the nice design on the BAe website, 20,000 ish tonnes, built cheaply. But Carrier strike, or carrier enabled power projection whatever its now called requires a proper carrier, a dock would be a very expensive addition that would make it more costly and less effective for the primary role.
What do you mean by lifts? ships as in "lifting equipment" or lifts as in lifting aircraft from hanger to deck?
in my view the more hulls the better, as pointed out numerous times,they can only be in one place at one time, so I would keep the roles separate.
I sure a dual role was in mind, but this is a quote from wiki "RFA Sir Tristram (L3505) is a Landing Ship Logistics of the Round Table class. She was launched in 1966, and accepted into British Army service in 1967. As with others of her class, she was transferred to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in 1970".
Anixtu
New Member
Again most is covered, if you would like more detail then best to message, rather than me repeat. Re construction time tables I would thought commissioning 2005, 2010 & 2015. The Invincibles doing 25-30 years, they would also have do the work of Ocean so a few more miles on the clock.
I am sure the RN could have spent the money for Ocean on something equally important.
Why do it, they would be: better, more flexible ships less likely to be laid up in reserve, cheaper to build, less risky on budgets.
The reason it would never have happened in the ultra conservative nature of the RN brass, that rejects innovation. This has seen a focus on: single role, increasingly unimaginative and sadly expensive ships, that have become unattractive to foreign buyers. I hope the T26 helps to change this.
I was with a young graduate engineer last week in Devonport from one of our top uni's, very pro RN, but with no real knowledge of other navies. I asked him to google the: JCI, then the Camberra's, then the Mistral's and the Russian orders. His mouth dropped, he could not believe what he had read and just responded why aren't we doing this!
You can blame politicans, and journo (they were right on the F35b story though!), but the RN brass must shoulder the bulk the responsibility.
Is it any surpise most of the engineering groups now want to become service companies and want to get out of ship building.
Well is says they where accepted into British Army service in 1967, it was the nearest quote I could find, but I recall something saying they were built to replace old LST, the army was using.
I am still looking but just found this wonderful little film clip:
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=44490
Anixtu
New Member
OK,
I suggest you go and review the operational history of the LSLs and BISN/RFA operated LSTs of that era. Here's a start:
RFA Sir Lancelot
RFA Empire Gull
I suggest you go and review the operational history of the LSLs and BISN/RFA operated LSTs of that era. Here's a start:
RFA Sir Lancelot
RFA Empire Gull