By: swerve
- 8th April 2012 at 23:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Swerve,
The 'current' situation is not going to change until we abolish 4yr terms of office for the incumbent regime. Its too easy to blurt all the money away and leave a note for the next guy to take the seat saying 'bad luck all the moneys gone'. That will never change....at least it hasnt since the advent of industrial warfare!.
Five year electoral cycles (it's the USA that has four year terms, not us) aren't to blame. Firstly, look at how long governments actually last. The last time the party in power changed in five years or less was in the 1970s. We've had just two changes of party in power in the last 32 years, & the current lot still has three years to run.
Also, we get u-turns within a single term. Look at armoured vehicle procurement in the last 20 years, for example. There's no correlation in it between changes of party in power & the MoD changing its mind on what to buy.
Then you can look abroad, & see that while some countries are in an even worse mess, many others manage much greater consistency, even when they're more prone than we are to kick out the party in power & replace it.
By: Jonesy
- 9th April 2012 at 00:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fed,
UD DoD allegedly has VLBB at 142lb UNDER target set in KPP currently - which, as earlier described, is 2 x 1000lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120 for about 3000lb total on top of reserve fuel.
There is not much margin for weight growth, but, were a very, very long way from saying that it cant VL with payload. With a loadout of a couple of 500lb PGMs or Brimstone class weapons and a couple of AAMs - as we've seen in Afghan and Libya you arent even close to the weight limits.
Can you provide a link to this issue of fuel carry as it really just does not make a great deal of sense?.
Swerve
Our term is generally between 4 and 4.5 years...I used 4 as shorthand. The issue is still that the gestation period for modern principle weapons systems is 3, 4 or more parliaments.
Is it always the case...no. I dont think you can argue that some projects are more political football than others. Carrier Strike seeming amongst the most evocative.
Other countries definietly do better...Japan for example...how much of that difference is cultural as opposed to functional?. i.e How much do the keiretsu linkages etc ensure that what needs doing gets done irrelevent of the actions of the official ministries?.
By: swerve
- 9th April 2012 at 09:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, the average is less then five years (has to be, when that's a maximum, not fixed), but the relevant thing is that the electoral cycle is not the length of governments. It's therefore not usually important in this context, though I agree that some projects are more political than others.
By: Liger30
- 9th April 2012 at 09:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On an interesting side note for Liger30 Italy almost operated Polaris alongside the UK.
Oh, i know. The helicopter cruisers Vittorio Veneto and Andrea Doria had 4 and 2 Polaris launch tubes each, if i remember correctly, back at the time in which there was a talk of creating a NATO-wide, NATO-owned deterrent in addition to the US one.
Instead the tubes ended up empty all of their lives, and the Royal Navy was gutted by the government as the government turned the money flow to SSBN.
By: Distiller
- 9th April 2012 at 10:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm slightly fascinated with the CVF/JSF discussion. Don't result the choice of cats/wires vs ramp/no wires in totally different operational profiles for the carriers that do way beyond the question of B or C? Just have a look at how the U.S. will/would operate them! On the one side the B on amphib carriers, together with helicopoters, slightly behind the horizon, optimized for forcible amphib entry, and the B as CAS+ asset. On the other side the C on large fleet carriers, in principal designed for long-range strike. Wouldn't the same apply to CVF? How can the UK govt change the character of the carriers and depict it as the simple question of installing some additional gadgets? CVF remains a questionable supersize-me amphib. Cause if I want cost effective land attack capability I build some light commercial hull UAV carrier to provide ISR for sub-launched (or cargo aircraft launched) cruise missiles. Even with the C the CVF will not be capable of land attack against a more capable enemy, as the C doesn't have the range for the job. Leaves the amphib support role, for which the CVF is totally oversized, and I would make it a STOBAR carrier (witha very soft ramp) with C-130 in mind, turning it into what the USN terms the "sea base". On the strike side with the wires you can operate SHornets and Rafales and eventually 35C, and with the long run-up from all the way in the back you can get them into the air with decent payload.
By: Jonesy
- 9th April 2012 at 11:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now were getting there.
Distiller Carrier Strike is all about high sortie rate just-over-the-horizon (100-200nm back) strike effects in support of a UK/allied beachhead or assembly area. CVF is even designed with assault routes to the flight deck to allow it to balance tacair/amphib deployment so, for more limited threat scenarios, we send CVF with a fleshed out NSW to perhaps 18 cabs, plus an Apache det, plus half a dozen Chinny's and a short battalion of airmobile light infantry. The term used was 'golf-bag' capability as it can take along air/land elements and do the job of a CVA plus LPH at the same time. If we need to attrite modest theatre denial assets ashore thats done with F-35B/Storm Shadow and Sub-TLAM from beyond entry-denial ranges.
UK force mix is then CVF, an Albion with her LCU's and a Bay or two with Mexies plus escort. CVF is surging 60 sorties a day for the first 72hrs supported by TLAM then, once safer to move inshore closes to just-OTH to support up to brigade strength landing force and the establishment of a beach- and air-head as applicable. Some component of the fastjet force could detach to forward shore basing, if such facilities exist and can be A400M supportable, to allow for the carrier deck to be freed up.
The 60k ton size is all about adaptability. If there is a higher threat level, and theatre entry will require more work to achieve, the ship goes to full CVA mode and embarks 30+ fighters to get, with the JCA KPP'd 3 sortie surge rate, 100 sorties per day at minimum. If STOVL failed the ships remain sized properly to be adapted for CATOBAR and still generate somewhere near the same capability. The size then, far from being an extravagance, is a key enabler for operational flexibility and relevance.
Cause if I want cost effective land attack capability I build some light commercial hull UAV carrier to provide ISR for sub-launched (or cargo aircraft launched) cruise missiles.
As per the earlier element in the discussion regarding the Guardian/Mariner type UAV's why build and crew seperate hulls for this?. Why not put a multimode air/surface search set on the UAV....even better with SAR spot imaging capability....as well as the usual optronics and use that off the big deck carrier as well. The deck and hangar space is there regardless and you offset the rotary-AEW limits on carrier battlespace awareness in the same solution?.
By: Fedaykin
- 9th April 2012 at 11:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fed,
UD DoD allegedly has VLBB at 142lb UNDER target set in KPP currently - which, as earlier described, is 2 x 1000lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120 for about 3000lb total on top of reserve fuel.
There is not much margin for weight growth, but, were a very, very long way from saying that it cant VL with payload. With a loadout of a couple of 500lb PGMs or Brimstone class weapons and a couple of AAMs - as we've seen in Afghan and Libya you arent even close to the weight limits.
Can you provide a link to this issue of fuel carry as it really just does not make a great deal of sense?.
Simples Jonesy, go to Newsagent pick up latest copy of AFM, buy then takes home and read Tim Coxs article. I am not saying it can't VL with a load I am saying it is unsafe. AMRAAM has been deleted from the load out on a strike mission due to weight issues. F-35B as it stands doesn't meet the JCA KPP, so that means STOVL has failed as far as I am concerned and we should go with CATOBAR.
By: Jonesy
- 9th April 2012 at 11:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Simples Jonesy, go to Newsagent pick up latest copy of AFM, buy then takes home and read Tim Coxs article. I am not saying it can't VL with a load I am saying it is unsafe. AMRAAM has been deleted from the load out on a strike mission due to weight issues. F-35B as it stands doesn't meet the JCA KPP, so that means STOVL has failed as far as I am concerned and we should go with CATOBAR.
Doesnt appear unsafe or even particularly difficult to me and thats 10knts over SRL approach speed that Qinetiq mentioned!. Remember that SRL is not a similar approach to CATOBAR and the CVF deck is not a small one like a CVS Fed so the fact that this is a deck and not an airstrip is marginal in all except really poor sea conditions.
The AMRAAM deletion is contradictory to US DoD figures according to AvWeek. I've yet to pick up my copy of the magazine this month so I will give it a read, but, at present these claims dont seem exactly unchallenged!.
By: Fedaykin
- 9th April 2012 at 12:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well thats a lovely video of a landing onto a runway. But I presume the aircraft has no payload.
Sorry Jonesy, you are not going to shift my opinion that it would be a TERRIBLE retrograde step to return to STOVL. A step that would seriously restrict our offensive capabilities and even endanger our crews. That is my opinion but I respect that yours differs and you are not budging from it. Maybe we are both wearing different rose tinted glasses:D.
Anyhow I am going to step back from this argument for the moment as I don't want to be seen to be arguing with a fellow poster and forum friend who I respect for his clear thinking (even if I don't think it is clear on this;)). I suppose we all wait for the next government study to finish...
By: Jonesy
- 9th April 2012 at 12:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyhow I am going to step back from this argument for the moment as I don't want to be seen to be arguing with a fellow poster and forum friend who I respect for his clear thinking (even if I don't think it is clear on this;)). I suppose we all wait for the next government study to finish...
Fair play...in my view the very best people to argue with are those you consider friends...after all if they then go on to prove you are an idiot better that you, at least, have the comfort that you pick your friends well!.
Anyway my cap is tipped to you sir and it will be quite something to see what happens next!.
By: F-18RN
- 9th April 2012 at 16:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this debate about the carriers and what jet type should fly from them is simply indicative of a wider problem, Britain wants to have its cake and eat it. What I mean is that we like being a major player in the world, its almost a drug that six or seven decades on from the end of the Empire we still have a craving for, but we're not prepared to pay for it. Instead we continually squeaze the defence budget in favour of tax cuts or spending on other Government departments.
Whilst the USA and France have predominantly indigenous kit that is wholly owned by them, we do not. Typhoon is a fourway collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain and the Lightning II regardless of which version(s) we end up with is American. France's SSBNs have French missiles in their tubes whilst we have US Tridents, and apparently they're not even bought outright from Uncle Sam as Polaris was but part of some jointly maintained pool of missiles. The missiles in whichever Vanguard class sub is currently on patrol, this time last year as I understand it were loaded on a US Ohio class boat. And all the time the politicians pat themselves on the back and say this is good value for money.
I would argue that if we're truly a player in the world we should have our own kit, if France can do it, then why shouldn't we? But then that comes back to the whole willingness to spend. At the rate we're going divesting ourselves of military kit and the commitments that they were intended to maintain in order to balance the books and pay for Trident and its proposed like-for-like replacement it won't even be worth us maintaining a nuclear deterrent in the first place.
I know what I suggest next will never happen, if only because its too emotive for many politicians but thanks to this current economic crisis, my country, which I care about greatly, has reached a fork in the road vis a vis its status in the world. It was going to happen one day, but the deficit problems have simply accelerated things. We need to have a two stage review, in fact the mother of all reviews to be undertaken, Stage One by the FCO and Stage Two by the MoD with the choice being between (1) accepting a reduced role in the world including giving up such status simbols as our Security Council seat, our nuclear weapons and reducing our conventional forces including scrapping our flat tops (2) rolling up our sleaves and saying if we wish to continue as a major player on the world stage we need to increase greatly our defence spending in real terms, as part of GDP and funding such expensive things as a pair of new aircraft carriers for the Navy, with catapults and arrestor wires which can be used as either strike or fleet carriers. In essence becoming a minature US.
But I am certain that the current course, a sort of third way of make do and mend which we've practiced arguably since the end of World war II is unsustainable and indeed undignified in the eyes of the world. And it also leads to damaging and petty interservice rivalries as well as unnecessarily endanging the lives of our brave men and women in uniform by trying to do things on the cheap violating the much vaunted 'Military Covenant'.
Apologies to all of you for my rant, I just had to get it off my chest. Please feel free to return to bickering about which sucks the least, the F-35B or the F-35C.
By: benroethig
- 9th April 2012 at 17:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this debate about the carriers and what jet type should fly from them is simply indicative of a wider problem, Britain wants to have its cake and eat it. What I mean is that we like being a major player in the world, its almost a drug that six or seven decades on from the end of the Empire we still have a craving for, but we're not prepared to pay for it. Instead we continually squeaze the defence budget in favour of tax cuts or spending on other Government departments.
Whilst the USA and France have predominantly indigenous kit that is wholly owned by them, we do not. Typhoon is a fourway collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain and the Lightning II regardless of which version(s) we end up with is American. France's SSBNs have French missiles in their tubes whilst we have US Tridents, and apparently they're not even bought outright from Uncle Sam as Polaris was but part of some jointly maintained pool of missiles. The missiles in whichever Vanguard class sub is currently on patrol, this time last year as I understand it were loaded on a US Ohio class boat. And all the time the politicians pat themselves on the back and say this is good value for money.
I would argue that if we're truly a player in the world we should have our own kit, if France can do it, then why shouldn't we? But then that comes back to the whole willingness to spend. At the rate we're going divesting ourselves of military kit and the commitments that they were intended to maintain in order to balance the books and pay for Trident and its proposed like-for-like replacement it won't even be worth us maintaining a nuclear deterrent in the first place.
I know what I suggest next will never happen, if only because its too emotive for many politicians but thanks to this current economic crisis, my country, which I care about greatly, has reached a fork in the road vis a vis its status in the world. It was going to happen one day, but the deficit problems have simply accelerated things. We need to have a two stage review, in fact the mother of all reviews to be undertaken, Stage One by the FCO and Stage Two by the MoD with the choice being between (1) accepting a reduced role in the world including giving up such status simbols as our Security Council seat, our nuclear weapons and reducing our conventional forces including scrapping our flat tops (2) rolling up our sleaves and saying if we wish to continue as a major player on the world stage we need to increase greatly our defence spending in real terms, as part of GDP and funding such expensive things as a pair of new aircraft carriers for the Navy, with catapults and arrestor wires which can be used as either strike or fleet carriers. In essence becoming a minature US.
But I am certain that the current course, a sort of third way of make do and mend which we've practiced arguably since the end of World war II is unsustainable and indeed undignified in the eyes of the world. And it also leads to damaging and petty interservice rivalries as well as unnecessarily endanging the lives of our brave men and women in uniform by trying to do things on the cheap violating the much vaunted 'Military Covenant'.
Apologies to all of you for my rant, I just had to get it off my chest. Please feel free to return to bickering about which sucks the least, the F-35B or the F-35C.
People can say a lot of things about the French, some of it somewhat justifiably less than pleasant, but they never lost pride in being French and they never lost ambition. Both were unfortunately social engineered out of the British public in the anti-colonial push.
I don't know how cost effective it is, but its pretty ingenious how they came up with a way to build this ship using the UK's current destroyer sized shipbuilding capabilities.
By: RN Phantom
- 9th April 2012 at 17:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People can say a lot of things about the French, some of it somewhat justifiably less than pleasant, but they never lost pride in being French and they never lost ambition. Both were unfortunately social engineered out of the British public in the anti-colonial push.
Apologies for going off topic here, but it really all comes from the aftermath of Suez. The French formed the exact opposite conclusions that we did and decided that they had to be prepared to stand up for their interests and that meant they needed to have a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. They refused American help and this meant that it took longer for the Force Oceanique Strategique to reach the water than the RN's Resolution class SSBN's did and it was arguably less capable at first, they kept spending money on it. In contrast Britain gave up its rocket technology thanks to good old short termism so we don't have the expertise to build an indigenous SLBM. Whereas the M51 SLBM is derived from the Ariane 5's solid boosters and that no doubt helped to reduce the development cost.
That's the fundamental difference between France and Britain, the French realise that to be at the top table you have to spend money, that's why Dassault can tell potential Rafale buyers that the aircraft has fully integrated air to surface capability, ECM etc whereas BAe can only tell potential Typhoon buyers "Err can we get back to you on that?" Its that whole short termism and trying to do things on the cheap mentality that has cost Britain so badly in just about all aspects since the War.
By: kev 99
- 9th April 2012 at 18:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree about short termism and not being willing to pony up with the money, been like it for decades. Short termism is probably one of the greatest contributing factor to the demise of British manufacturing as well, it appears to be a cultural thing, but that's way off topic.......
By: Fedaykin
- 9th April 2012 at 18:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know how cost effective it is, but its pretty ingenious how they came up with a way to build this ship using the UK's current destroyer sized shipbuilding capabilities.
When Bae started to put together its plans for an Invincible replacement in the 90's there preferred build location was H&W Belfast. They had facilities that only required minimal work to make ready for large carrier construction, a suitable construction basin large enough to allow parallel construction of major carrier sections, suitable gantry cranes, no tidal or bridge restrictions floating the vessel out of the harbour and more recent experience of large ship construction. With peace developing in Northern Ireland it would of been a fantastic boost to the economy of the area helping to cement regrowth and cross community reconciliation. ... Only one tiny problem, post 1997 election you had a Labour government with a chancellor who had a ship repair yard in his constituency. That chancellor (who has consistently shown no interest in defence except when it pertains to jobs in his constituency) was only going to release money if plans were changed! We now have had to spend lots of money constructing the vessels in a yard intended for repair with dry docks unsuitable without significant rework and the purchase of a new gantry crane. The owners of said yard have said they have no intention of carrying on ship building in Rosyth after the carriers are finished and they have to fly up people from other construction focussed yards to help in the build process.
It is an entirely ass ended way of building a ship that doesn't make much sense in a cost or efficiency basis. Lets not forget that in a long forgotten earlier pre-1997 election SSDR Rosyth was intended to be closed. On a side note using H&W Belfast for carrier construction might well of been enough to push the yards nose through the lucrative Cruise ship and large fast container ship build market, the one area of ship building where Europe is still competitive...
By: Frosty
- 9th April 2012 at 22:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When Bae started to put together its plans for an Invincible replacement in the 90's there preferred build location was H&W Belfast. They had facilities that only required minimal work to make ready for large carrier construction, a suitable construction basin large enough to allow parallel construction of major carrier sections, suitable gantry cranes, no tidal or bridge restrictions floating the vessel out of the harbour and more recent experience of large ship construction. With peace developing in Northern Ireland it would of been a fantastic boost to the economy of the area helping to cement regrowth and cross community reconciliation. ... Only one tiny problem, post 1997 election you had a Labour government with a chancellor who had a ship repair yard in his constituency. That chancellor (who has consistently shown no interest in defence except when it pertains to jobs in his constituency) was only going to release money if plans were changed! We now have had to spend lots of money constructing the vessels in a yard intended for repair with dry docks unsuitable without significant rework and the purchase of a new gantry crane. The owners of said yard have said they have no intention of carrying on ship building in Rosyth after the carriers are finished and they have to fly up people from other construction focussed yards to help in the build process.
It is an entirely ass ended way of building a ship that doesn't make much sense in a cost or efficiency basis. Lets not forget that in a long forgotten earlier pre-1997 election SSDR Rosyth was intended to be closed. On a side note using H&W Belfast for carrier construction might well of been enough to push the yards nose through the lucrative Cruise ship and large fast container ship build market, the one area of ship building where Europe is still competitive...
I do think the current method does have the benefit of using the smaller yards which keeps them busy in between building the Type 45s and the Type 26s. Which actually makes quite a lot of economical sense.
I agree we have missed the boat(forgive me for the pun) on the cruise ship and large fast container market. But I think the investment of CVF would have come too late to turn that around. We should have been investing in our yards from the 70s through to the 90s modernising them and making them viable for the new markets. It was a great opportunity missed which has really hurt the North of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
By: 19K11
- 9th April 2012 at 23:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apologies for going off topic here, but it really all comes from the aftermath of Suez. The French formed the exact opposite conclusions that we did and decided that they had to be prepared to stand up for their interests and that meant they needed to have a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. They refused American help and this meant that it took longer for the Force Oceanique Strategique to reach the water than the RN's Resolution class SSBN's did and it was arguably less capable at first, they kept spending money on it. In contrast Britain gave up its rocket technology thanks to good old short termism so we don't have the expertise to build an indigenous SLBM. Whereas the M51 SLBM is derived from the Ariane 5's solid boosters and that no doubt helped to reduce the development cost.
That's the fundamental difference between France and Britain, the French realise that to be at the top table you have to spend money, that's why Dassault can tell potential Rafale buyers that the aircraft has fully integrated air to surface capability, ECM etc whereas BAe can only tell potential Typhoon buyers "Err can we get back to you on that?" Its that whole short termism and trying to do things on the cheap mentality that has cost Britain so badly in just about all aspects since the War.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 8th April 2012 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
On an interesting side note for Liger30 Italy almost operated Polaris alongside the UK.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 8th April 2012 at 23:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Five year electoral cycles (it's the USA that has four year terms, not us) aren't to blame. Firstly, look at how long governments actually last. The last time the party in power changed in five years or less was in the 1970s. We've had just two changes of party in power in the last 32 years, & the current lot still has three years to run.
Also, we get u-turns within a single term. Look at armoured vehicle procurement in the last 20 years, for example. There's no correlation in it between changes of party in power & the MoD changing its mind on what to buy.
Then you can look abroad, & see that while some countries are in an even worse mess, many others manage much greater consistency, even when they're more prone than we are to kick out the party in power & replace it.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 9th April 2012 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fed,
UD DoD allegedly has VLBB at 142lb UNDER target set in KPP currently - which, as earlier described, is 2 x 1000lb JDAM and 2 x AIM-120 for about 3000lb total on top of reserve fuel.
There is not much margin for weight growth, but, were a very, very long way from saying that it cant VL with payload. With a loadout of a couple of 500lb PGMs or Brimstone class weapons and a couple of AAMs - as we've seen in Afghan and Libya you arent even close to the weight limits.
Can you provide a link to this issue of fuel carry as it really just does not make a great deal of sense?.
Swerve
Our term is generally between 4 and 4.5 years...I used 4 as shorthand. The issue is still that the gestation period for modern principle weapons systems is 3, 4 or more parliaments.
Is it always the case...no. I dont think you can argue that some projects are more political football than others. Carrier Strike seeming amongst the most evocative.
Other countries definietly do better...Japan for example...how much of that difference is cultural as opposed to functional?. i.e How much do the keiretsu linkages etc ensure that what needs doing gets done irrelevent of the actions of the official ministries?.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 9th April 2012 at 09:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, the average is less then five years (has to be, when that's a maximum, not fixed), but the relevant thing is that the electoral cycle is not the length of governments. It's therefore not usually important in this context, though I agree that some projects are more political than others.
Posts: 902
By: Liger30 - 9th April 2012 at 09:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, i know. The helicopter cruisers Vittorio Veneto and Andrea Doria had 4 and 2 Polaris launch tubes each, if i remember correctly, back at the time in which there was a talk of creating a NATO-wide, NATO-owned deterrent in addition to the US one.
Instead the tubes ended up empty all of their lives, and the Royal Navy was gutted by the government as the government turned the money flow to SSBN.
Posts: 4,674
By: Distiller - 9th April 2012 at 10:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm slightly fascinated with the CVF/JSF discussion. Don't result the choice of cats/wires vs ramp/no wires in totally different operational profiles for the carriers that do way beyond the question of B or C? Just have a look at how the U.S. will/would operate them! On the one side the B on amphib carriers, together with helicopoters, slightly behind the horizon, optimized for forcible amphib entry, and the B as CAS+ asset. On the other side the C on large fleet carriers, in principal designed for long-range strike. Wouldn't the same apply to CVF? How can the UK govt change the character of the carriers and depict it as the simple question of installing some additional gadgets? CVF remains a questionable supersize-me amphib. Cause if I want cost effective land attack capability I build some light commercial hull UAV carrier to provide ISR for sub-launched (or cargo aircraft launched) cruise missiles. Even with the C the CVF will not be capable of land attack against a more capable enemy, as the C doesn't have the range for the job. Leaves the amphib support role, for which the CVF is totally oversized, and I would make it a STOBAR carrier (witha very soft ramp) with C-130 in mind, turning it into what the USN terms the "sea base". On the strike side with the wires you can operate SHornets and Rafales and eventually 35C, and with the long run-up from all the way in the back you can get them into the air with decent payload.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 9th April 2012 at 11:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now were getting there.
Distiller Carrier Strike is all about high sortie rate just-over-the-horizon (100-200nm back) strike effects in support of a UK/allied beachhead or assembly area. CVF is even designed with assault routes to the flight deck to allow it to balance tacair/amphib deployment so, for more limited threat scenarios, we send CVF with a fleshed out NSW to perhaps 18 cabs, plus an Apache det, plus half a dozen Chinny's and a short battalion of airmobile light infantry. The term used was 'golf-bag' capability as it can take along air/land elements and do the job of a CVA plus LPH at the same time. If we need to attrite modest theatre denial assets ashore thats done with F-35B/Storm Shadow and Sub-TLAM from beyond entry-denial ranges.
UK force mix is then CVF, an Albion with her LCU's and a Bay or two with Mexies plus escort. CVF is surging 60 sorties a day for the first 72hrs supported by TLAM then, once safer to move inshore closes to just-OTH to support up to brigade strength landing force and the establishment of a beach- and air-head as applicable. Some component of the fastjet force could detach to forward shore basing, if such facilities exist and can be A400M supportable, to allow for the carrier deck to be freed up.
The 60k ton size is all about adaptability. If there is a higher threat level, and theatre entry will require more work to achieve, the ship goes to full CVA mode and embarks 30+ fighters to get, with the JCA KPP'd 3 sortie surge rate, 100 sorties per day at minimum. If STOVL failed the ships remain sized properly to be adapted for CATOBAR and still generate somewhere near the same capability. The size then, far from being an extravagance, is a key enabler for operational flexibility and relevance.
As per the earlier element in the discussion regarding the Guardian/Mariner type UAV's why build and crew seperate hulls for this?. Why not put a multimode air/surface search set on the UAV....even better with SAR spot imaging capability....as well as the usual optronics and use that off the big deck carrier as well. The deck and hangar space is there regardless and you offset the rotary-AEW limits on carrier battlespace awareness in the same solution?.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 9th April 2012 at 11:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Simples Jonesy, go to Newsagent pick up latest copy of AFM, buy then takes home and read Tim Coxs article. I am not saying it can't VL with a load I am saying it is unsafe. AMRAAM has been deleted from the load out on a strike mission due to weight issues. F-35B as it stands doesn't meet the JCA KPP, so that means STOVL has failed as far as I am concerned and we should go with CATOBAR.
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 9th April 2012 at 11:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Youtube clip of a 40knt F-35B approach:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF8t5re3nKU
Doesnt appear unsafe or even particularly difficult to me and thats 10knts over SRL approach speed that Qinetiq mentioned!. Remember that SRL is not a similar approach to CATOBAR and the CVF deck is not a small one like a CVS Fed so the fact that this is a deck and not an airstrip is marginal in all except really poor sea conditions.
The AMRAAM deletion is contradictory to US DoD figures according to AvWeek. I've yet to pick up my copy of the magazine this month so I will give it a read, but, at present these claims dont seem exactly unchallenged!.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 9th April 2012 at 12:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well thats a lovely video of a landing onto a runway. But I presume the aircraft has no payload.
Sorry Jonesy, you are not going to shift my opinion that it would be a TERRIBLE retrograde step to return to STOVL. A step that would seriously restrict our offensive capabilities and even endanger our crews. That is my opinion but I respect that yours differs and you are not budging from it. Maybe we are both wearing different rose tinted glasses:D.
Anyhow I am going to step back from this argument for the moment as I don't want to be seen to be arguing with a fellow poster and forum friend who I respect for his clear thinking (even if I don't think it is clear on this;)). I suppose we all wait for the next government study to finish...
Posts: 4,875
By: Jonesy - 9th April 2012 at 12:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fair play...in my view the very best people to argue with are those you consider friends...after all if they then go on to prove you are an idiot better that you, at least, have the comfort that you pick your friends well!.
Anyway my cap is tipped to you sir and it will be quite something to see what happens next!.
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 9th April 2012 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think this debate about the carriers and what jet type should fly from them is simply indicative of a wider problem, Britain wants to have its cake and eat it. What I mean is that we like being a major player in the world, its almost a drug that six or seven decades on from the end of the Empire we still have a craving for, but we're not prepared to pay for it. Instead we continually squeaze the defence budget in favour of tax cuts or spending on other Government departments.
Whilst the USA and France have predominantly indigenous kit that is wholly owned by them, we do not. Typhoon is a fourway collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain and the Lightning II regardless of which version(s) we end up with is American. France's SSBNs have French missiles in their tubes whilst we have US Tridents, and apparently they're not even bought outright from Uncle Sam as Polaris was but part of some jointly maintained pool of missiles. The missiles in whichever Vanguard class sub is currently on patrol, this time last year as I understand it were loaded on a US Ohio class boat. And all the time the politicians pat themselves on the back and say this is good value for money.
I would argue that if we're truly a player in the world we should have our own kit, if France can do it, then why shouldn't we? But then that comes back to the whole willingness to spend. At the rate we're going divesting ourselves of military kit and the commitments that they were intended to maintain in order to balance the books and pay for Trident and its proposed like-for-like replacement it won't even be worth us maintaining a nuclear deterrent in the first place.
I know what I suggest next will never happen, if only because its too emotive for many politicians but thanks to this current economic crisis, my country, which I care about greatly, has reached a fork in the road vis a vis its status in the world. It was going to happen one day, but the deficit problems have simply accelerated things. We need to have a two stage review, in fact the mother of all reviews to be undertaken, Stage One by the FCO and Stage Two by the MoD with the choice being between (1) accepting a reduced role in the world including giving up such status simbols as our Security Council seat, our nuclear weapons and reducing our conventional forces including scrapping our flat tops (2) rolling up our sleaves and saying if we wish to continue as a major player on the world stage we need to increase greatly our defence spending in real terms, as part of GDP and funding such expensive things as a pair of new aircraft carriers for the Navy, with catapults and arrestor wires which can be used as either strike or fleet carriers. In essence becoming a minature US.
But I am certain that the current course, a sort of third way of make do and mend which we've practiced arguably since the end of World war II is unsustainable and indeed undignified in the eyes of the world. And it also leads to damaging and petty interservice rivalries as well as unnecessarily endanging the lives of our brave men and women in uniform by trying to do things on the cheap violating the much vaunted 'Military Covenant'.
Apologies to all of you for my rant, I just had to get it off my chest. Please feel free to return to bickering about which sucks the least, the F-35B or the F-35C.
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 9th April 2012 at 17:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
People can say a lot of things about the French, some of it somewhat justifiably less than pleasant, but they never lost pride in being French and they never lost ambition. Both were unfortunately social engineered out of the British public in the anti-colonial push.
Posts: 902
By: Liger30 - 9th April 2012 at 17:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm tired of the bickering, i prefer looking at LB04 coming together:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2127237/Royal-Navy-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-warship-passes-major-milestone.html
Posts: 487
By: benroethig - 9th April 2012 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't know how cost effective it is, but its pretty ingenious how they came up with a way to build this ship using the UK's current destroyer sized shipbuilding capabilities.
Posts: 87
By: RN Phantom - 9th April 2012 at 17:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Apologies for going off topic here, but it really all comes from the aftermath of Suez. The French formed the exact opposite conclusions that we did and decided that they had to be prepared to stand up for their interests and that meant they needed to have a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent. They refused American help and this meant that it took longer for the Force Oceanique Strategique to reach the water than the RN's Resolution class SSBN's did and it was arguably less capable at first, they kept spending money on it. In contrast Britain gave up its rocket technology thanks to good old short termism so we don't have the expertise to build an indigenous SLBM. Whereas the M51 SLBM is derived from the Ariane 5's solid boosters and that no doubt helped to reduce the development cost.
That's the fundamental difference between France and Britain, the French realise that to be at the top table you have to spend money, that's why Dassault can tell potential Rafale buyers that the aircraft has fully integrated air to surface capability, ECM etc whereas BAe can only tell potential Typhoon buyers "Err can we get back to you on that?" Its that whole short termism and trying to do things on the cheap mentality that has cost Britain so badly in just about all aspects since the War.
Ah well rant over! :(
Posts: 1,533
By: kev 99 - 9th April 2012 at 18:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree about short termism and not being willing to pony up with the money, been like it for decades. Short termism is probably one of the greatest contributing factor to the demise of British manufacturing as well, it appears to be a cultural thing, but that's way off topic.......
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 9th April 2012 at 18:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When Bae started to put together its plans for an Invincible replacement in the 90's there preferred build location was H&W Belfast. They had facilities that only required minimal work to make ready for large carrier construction, a suitable construction basin large enough to allow parallel construction of major carrier sections, suitable gantry cranes, no tidal or bridge restrictions floating the vessel out of the harbour and more recent experience of large ship construction. With peace developing in Northern Ireland it would of been a fantastic boost to the economy of the area helping to cement regrowth and cross community reconciliation. ... Only one tiny problem, post 1997 election you had a Labour government with a chancellor who had a ship repair yard in his constituency. That chancellor (who has consistently shown no interest in defence except when it pertains to jobs in his constituency) was only going to release money if plans were changed! We now have had to spend lots of money constructing the vessels in a yard intended for repair with dry docks unsuitable without significant rework and the purchase of a new gantry crane. The owners of said yard have said they have no intention of carrying on ship building in Rosyth after the carriers are finished and they have to fly up people from other construction focussed yards to help in the build process.
It is an entirely ass ended way of building a ship that doesn't make much sense in a cost or efficiency basis. Lets not forget that in a long forgotten earlier pre-1997 election SSDR Rosyth was intended to be closed. On a side note using H&W Belfast for carrier construction might well of been enough to push the yards nose through the lucrative Cruise ship and large fast container ship build market, the one area of ship building where Europe is still competitive...
Posts: 334
By: Frosty - 9th April 2012 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I do think the current method does have the benefit of using the smaller yards which keeps them busy in between building the Type 45s and the Type 26s. Which actually makes quite a lot of economical sense.
I agree we have missed the boat(forgive me for the pun) on the cruise ship and large fast container market. But I think the investment of CVF would have come too late to turn that around. We should have been investing in our yards from the 70s through to the 90s modernising them and making them viable for the new markets. It was a great opportunity missed which has really hurt the North of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Posts: 226
By: 19K11 - 9th April 2012 at 23:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
VERY good post!