Shipbucket

TimothyC wrote:

apdsmith wrote:Lots of slightly ranty waffle.

I think you, and other people here fail to appreciate the fact that the size of the ship is such that she can sustain operations for an extended time, much longer than a smaller 30k ton ship would be able to, and that advantage is worth having - especially as the low cost of steel (relative to high cost things like electronics) means that she wasn't dramatically more expensive than the smaller ship would have been.

That's a fair point. I'd thought that the additional size was specifically to allow CATOBAR operations, which would have made then not requiring the architects to plan that in a blunder.

Ad

Very interesting points. I think the consensus is that the MOD have blundered on this project.

I'm also surprised to see them with a max speed of 25kts, this is not much more than Hms Hermes of 1920's!

Hi,

Although the overall internal volume and displacement of CVF is driven by things like stores and magazines, the flight deck and overall dimensions were driven by the high-intensity sortie rate and the need to stow a number of aircraft on deck.

Regarding conversion to CATOBAR; it was included in the design. Don't believe all you read about the supposed impossibility of actually doing so when it came down to it.

RP1

Hi RP1,

To be fair, as stated in the papers (I must confess I'm starting to mentally substitute something about commentary from those people in the park who shout at pigeons. It's more entertaining and about as accurate) , it wasn't impossible to make the change, it would merely have cost more than buying a new carrier. Was that over-stated?

Also, is there going to be a need for deck parking with the projected numbers of F-35B aircraft being purchased? I'd figured with the lower numbers and the cost (and also building in an assumption there about RAM coatings being somewhat delicate) they'd be spending as much time as possible belowdecks to preserve them as best as possible.

Regards,
Adam

I don't think more than 2 carriers was ever a practical proposition on the cards, the RN hasn't had three carriers in service for a long time now and manpower and pilots and aircraft are not sufficient for such a force. That is the main concern, will the RN ever have the manpower and the RAF/FAA the pilots and airframes (fixed and rotary) to keep two in commission at once? I think you'll find the promise of two carriers will be both in commission but one sat in dock under "refit" while the other is at sea.

I think there has been short-sightedness by the MOD, shaving some length and odds and ends saves small costs but never addresses the full impact over the life of the ships. This is a common mistake repeated time and again by the MOD and its predecessors. Still any major rebuild costs are in the future that's another government's headache to sort out. I don't think speed really matters these days (perhaps they hope on radar it'll look like a normal tanker and no-one will bother to attack it!), although CdG was the slowest carrier for many years at 28kts.

CATOBAR may have been nice but there are snags; limited choice of aircraft given the timeframe of the ship. They may last until 2046+, how many Super Hornets or Rafales will be left by then? The F-35C was the only realistic choice but that means the choices for the RAF were a mixed F-35B & C fleet or a mixed F-35A & C fleet. This way we only have to buy one type of aircraft without the complications of maintaining two slightly different types. This way all frontline pilots can be trained on the same type and can crossdeck from land to sea operations and as the fleet of F-35Bs grows there is the chance to bulk out these airgroups when needed. Also, CATOBAR training would need US or French support, unfortunately the early scrapping of the Harrier fleet has cut the VTOL experience, though one hopes some old timers in the RAF of high rank could become instructors. Cross decking US and French aircraft was a sound idea though. Interestingly the F-35C has only just begun carrier trials aboard Nimitz. It can land but can't take-off via catapult yet due to software issues...
I think when more UCAVs come on line, they may be able to withstand greater launch G and if more compact EMALS could be developed that might be an ideal future option.

Carrier AEW seems likely to be some kind of Merlin adaptation, all the offers have snazzy radars but all are retractable or inflated domes like the Sea Kings. Not really ideal but probably the best that can be done. Don't mention Osprey, it'll never happen for cost alone. Some day an UAV will probably take that role anyway.

Like Shippy, I feel some kind of missile CIWS should have been included. This is the most weakly armed carrier class in the world. We all know one single Type 45 can theoretically wipe out an entire nation's air force between cuppa breaks (as can the F-35) but something tells me defence in depth is better than relying 30mm to scare off some seagulls and dinghy-owning pirates. Overall though, I'd vote this as over-expensive and perhaps over-rated but its good to have some carrier capability back and we've managed to build them, that in itself is a major thing for an industry that is almost dead. Not many nations over the last 30 years have built two carriers at once like these ships.

A couple of points... I think there is a bit too much finger pointing at the MoD here where in reality things have been forced upon them by the treasury, and the MoD and ACA have been chasing around trying to find the least worst option.

Regarding ILMS - I wouldn't bet against these ships getting CAMM at some point as a replacement for the CIWS. The latter is getting marginal against some threats anyway, and CAMM can be fitted in the same space...

RP1

when I asked my stepfather on why Norway chose an 25+knots frigate, over an faster design. And Norway had up to now the Oslo class that could do 38 knots when she was new and all limiters of. His answer was: missiles. hunting for an submarine, well an submarine would only use it's 30+- knots capability when it move from A to B, but trying to not being detected by an ASW-vessel it will move slow.

Is speed really an issue?

Any task force, fleet can only travel at the speed of its slowest ship any way so even if you have a super duper 35kn capable carrier if one of the escorts can only do 28 your stuck at that....

With the carrier it doesn't need to be as fast as the escorts really, they need to just stick with it. Them being faster can then move around the ship whilst it ponders on... The carrier isn't going to be chasing down subs or alike, and no ship is gonna out run any incoming that's why you have CIWS or similar.

Don't see what the issue with speed is....

RP1. I heard the ships are designed with huge potential for future growth so CAMM is a very likely addition and probably not long into there first commission, I was just thinking why nothing was fitted from the start but cost cutting is a most likely suspect......

Hi,

The thing to remember is *cashflow*. We can talk about overall project cost and spend-to-save and all that very true and laudable stuff but in the end the Treasury (and TBH pretty much everyone else) really only worries about the cash in and cash out per unit time - cashflow. Ultimately if one moves to a long enough timescale the treasury has infinite money but on a short scale they don't, so things like an ILMS get pushed back as this evens out the cashflow. The same with the CATOBAR - it wasn't dropped because it was expensive per se, but because it was expensive *right now*. STOVL may actually turn out to be more expensive in the long run - but that's future money not now money!

The problems here are that (1) in the mean time you suffer reduced capability - and run the risk of never getting it! and (2) the planning process doesn't use the cashflow concept - MoD, and every other procurement department use overall costs, UPC/TLC comparisons etc, but that approach just doesn't match with the way in which things seem to be decided in reality. It would need a fundamental change - including some honesty from both sides IMHO - to move to a more coherent planning approach.

RP1

shippy2013 wrote:Is speed really an issue?


Don't see what the issue with speed is....

Speed is always an issue. Over long distances it can make a difference of days to deployment time, especially in the case of the Falklands, about 8,000 miles. If speed isn't an issue then it would be better to have a floating hulk, maximise aircraft handling spaces and tow it where ever.