Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Actually with respect to length etc., that's a myth, Nimitz class carries are about 50m longer (1/5) with more crew but, that's totally down to the fact the Nimitz is very obsolete and labour intensive tech. 

[Marks DTM Calib]

Yep been watching this-at last a decent programme worth watching.A lot of state of the art stuff and a crew of only 700 where the Americans have crews in the thousands.I was surprised that the upper deck guns they test fired on tonights episode aren't radar guided or something instead of being "hand held" as it were and aimed seemingly by eye.First thing I thought when they said she went to sea with 200 civilian workers aboard for finishing work was "Shades of Prince of Wales when she sailed with Hood to find Bismark" but no doubt plenty of ships have sailed with "civvies" on board.

Its the default, on every ship made, I always have guys on the first sailings and sail aways and its a must on sea trials.

[LC0112G]

Volume production and an increasing order book means that the F35 price per unit is beginning to drop and

F-35 production costs have dropped every year since first flight - with the exception of 2015. In 2009 they were $111M each, 2017 was $96.8M and 2019 is targeted to be $83M.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement

The version we've chosen is the most expensive, least capable version, to go on the largest carriers the UK has ever operated. Barking.

may do so further if the UK replaces Tornados with F35As and other expected orders happen.

And who's going to pay to replace the entire RAF tanker fleet so the RAF can buy F-35A? Our shiny new Voyager tankers are hose and drogue only, whereas the F-35A is USAF style boom refuelling only and cannot be modified with a probe.  The RAF don't own the Voyagers - Airtanker do under a PFI, and they have an exclusive contract to supply AAR assets to the RAF for (IIRC) 25 years. Undoing that contract is going to cost Bn$

What should have happened (as was supposed to between 2010-2012) was HMS PoW was fitted with CATOBAR, and both the RAF and RN switched to F-35C - which is probe and drogue. The reported £2Bn cost of the PoW retrofit will seem like beer money once the costs of operating two types (F35A and F35B) and retrofitting/replacing the Voyagers is taken into account. 

Nimrod MR4 was a clusterwhatsit from day one. The tech may have been good but the implementation was awful and I knew people who were jumping ship at BAe as long ago as 2000 because they could see what was happening - much the same as the Nimrod AEW3 program. The need for replacement MPA has nothing to do with SAR - the primary role is to protect the Nuclear Deterrent subs as they leave port on patrol. At the moment we have to ask NATO allies - the USN, French Navy and Canadian Forces to help out by supplying P3/P8/Atlantique and CP-140's whenever a boat leaves. If you can't get a boat out to sea without it being followed by an enemy hunter killer sub, then the deterrent is useless. Sure P8 will be useful for SAR and Fisheries protection etc, but these are secondary roles the RAF isn't responsible or funded for.

[Rods2]

Good points on the advantages of the F35C over the F35A.

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

[Lizzie Zoom]

As I have stressed before, my concerns are over the availability of warships to give adequate screening for these new super carriers given the lack of numbers we have already, but then the fact that any fleet will have a high percentage, say 20%, tied up in port undergoing repairs or refits.

Nelson no less had to send 6 ships of his fleet, that is about 20%, to replenish their supplies at Gibraltar just before he was to engage with the larger combined fleet, but due to Nelson's famous tactics on the day he still gained a massive victory. It could have been very different though.

At Jutland HMS Queen Elizabeth, , the Queen Elizabeth Class leader of the five supper-dreadnoughts, so 20% of the force, was in port for a refit just as the Royal Navy Grand Fleet was to finally meet the German High Seas Fleet, with an indecisive outcome to the Battle. The fifth super-dreadnought could have made a vital difference as the rest of the class of the Fifth Battle Squadron, rescued the remains of the First Battlecruiser Squadron and could  have gone on to destroy the German fleet.  However, in this case things went wrong for the RN on the day, with a mixture of mistakes made and bad luck,  and the RN commanders were not able to take advantage of their far superior fire power with losses sustained. 

During WW2 the aforementioned Battle of Midway destroyed 4 Japanese carriers due to a lack of adequate air protection and sunk the hopes of that nation to gain a victory over the USA, which went on to win the War against them,.

These are all past events, but what I am emphasizing is the crucial need for numbers and quality of naval units to not only successfully protect the flagships of each battle group, but go on and destroy the enemy.  This just is not the case today, with this website reflecting the true state of affairs, with the usual level of protection warships out of service due to refits and maintenance, but also, very worryingly, a lack of crew:
http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/ongoing-manpower-issues-revealed-by-status-of-royal-navy-surface-escorts/

 

[Lizzie Zoom]

..................................These facts reflect a far higher rate of "out of service" than the 20% I see as the bench mark of a standard, or acceptable, state of affairs for the adequate protection of the fleet.



 
[/quote]

[LC0112G]

..................................These facts reflect a far higher rate of "out of service" than the 20% I see as the bench mark of a standard, or acceptable, state of affairs for the adequate protection of the fleet.



 

[/quote]

With only 2 carriers, it's difficult to have more than 50% of your main assets in service at any one time. The French have just one carrier (although it is a proper one with CATOBAR!) so have that problem much of the time.

The USN are supposed to maintain 11 carriers, but in reality rarely have more than 10 operational carriers at any one time (currently CVN68-CVN77). Of these 2 or 3 are on station at any one time, with 2 in immediate reserve, and the rest in work up or re-fit.  So even with 11 carriers, the yanks struggle to put more than 5 or 6 to sea at any one time.

A USN Carrier battle group typically includes another 5 or 6 combat ships, including one air defence ship, two anti sub ships and a hunter killer sub. The Royal Navy supposedly has 6 Destroyers (T45), 13 Frigates (T23/Duke) and 6 HK Subs. Therefore even if 50% of those are in refit or work-up at any one time the RN should be able to escort a single carrier - although it doesn't leave much spare to do the other stuff the Govt ask the RN to do.  T45 and the HK's are well regarded (when they're working!).

Yes, we should have more of all the above, but even with more the new RN carrier battle groups would have been so much more potent if we were able to put AEW, ECM and AAR aircraft on board too - like the E2C Hawkeye, EF18G and KA6/F18F. Even the old Ark had Gannet and Buccaneer for these tasks. But we've gone for Jump Jets and Ski Jumps similar to Invincible, which rules all that out so we're limited to Helicopter AEW, no blue water AAR and range limited F-35B. As I said - Barking.

[LC0112G]

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

Yes, by 2010 most of the tech gubbins was working - or at least there was high confidence it would work in the very near future. In-fact I'm told much of it is now in P8. But Nimrod was doomed from 2005 when XV230 went bang over Afghanistan, and the investigation basically showed the Nimrod airworthiness was suspect - or at least there was little or no documentation to say it was airworthy. The MAA then starts demanding all sorts of proof that the various mods are 'safe' which BAe can't/won't produce, and you're left with an airframe that no-one will sign is safe for flight or even release to service. That's the problem when you try and refit a 1960's aircraft and try to apply 2010 safety standards to it - the documentation just doesn't exist.

Don't ask how the RAF got approval to new operate 'new' RC-135's  that all first flew in the early 1960's

[Kevin Wood]

I agree that the Nimrod development was a problematic mess from day 1 but I thought by 2010 most of the development problems at vast overrun time & cost had been sorted.

Yes, by 2010 most of the tech gubbins was working - or at least there was high confidence it would work in the very near future. In-fact I'm told much of it is now in P8. But Nimrod was doomed from 2005 when XV230 went bang over Afghanistan, and the investigation basically showed the Nimrod airworthiness was suspect - or at least there was little or no documentation to say it was airworthy. The MAA then starts demanding all sorts of proof that the various mods are 'safe' which BAe can't/won't produce, and you're left with an airframe that no-one will sign is safe for flight or even release to service. That's the problem when you try and refit a 1960's aircraft and try to apply 2010 safety standards to it - the documentation just doesn't exist.

Don't ask how the RAF got approval to new operate 'new' RC-135's  that all first flew in the early 1960's

Exactly where the air cadets glider fleet ended up!

[Lizzie Zoom]

To simply sum up what you are saying LC0112G we have very little defensive capability, let alone anything at the offensive level for a non-nuclear conflict, and I totally agree!

All this must change, but without me shouting off in detail about politics, hospitals and schools must take second place behind the defence of the Realm.

...oopppps, there I go, showing my right wing colours!
 

[Shackeng]

Yet still only two thirds the Nimitz class!

Actually with respect to length etc., that's a myth, Nimitz class carries are about 50m longer (1/5) with more crew but, that's totally down to the fact the Nimitz is very obsolete and labour intensive tech. 

You may have misunderstood my comment, I was merely pointing out that here we bragging about building two 'super' carriers, yet they are only two thirds the gross weight of the, now obsolete, Nimitz class laid down nearly 40 years ago. Even the Forrestal class from the '50's was bigger, shipped up to 90 aircraft, with IIRC, 4 deck side lifts.
I am in no way decrying these carriers, I just hope that common sense prevails, and they are not put into use without the required a/c and escort groups.

[Rods2]

When I worked for the MOD part of that was working with the Fleet Air Arm and their rule of thumb was needing 3 ship to guarantee one always being available and with Trident 4 as that allows for one being deployed and then the other returning to port from deployment while having one on station.

To have one available, one of them at any time one will be typically going through repairs, maintenance or a refit and a second, training and working up to full fighting efficiency and finally one fully operational and normally on a deployment or exercise.

At the time a good example of this was the three Invincible class carriers, (or 'through deck cruisers' for political purposes where the Labour Government at the time of their proposal and design would not allow the RN to have a new class of carriers ), so they always had one available. As the class was designed for helicopter operations when Harriers were added the maintenance facilities got very cramped with having to have the extra spares, test equipment and repair facilities for them.

Where the RN now has so few escorts unscheduled maintenance causes major scheduling and deployment problems with Type 45 engine troubles being a good example.

The first Type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow won't be operational until 2025 and not in service until 2027. A full 7 years after the first carrier is in service. We used to be able to build ships much faster than this with Admiral John 'Jackie' Fisher making sure that HMS Dreadnought was build in only 12 months, so it was finished before the politicians had a chance to cancel it where there was much opposition to such a new radical ship design. Without his vision, drive, bluntness, experience and political skills it would probably not have been built.... and then of course the rest is history, so from that point onwards where the design was so revolutionary you had older pre-dreadnought and then dreadnought battleships and the UK / German battleship arms race on the run up to WWI. Where it was the first of a new design it did not have a long service life where they found it had several major operational problems which were corrected on later designs.

[Lizzie Zoom]

When I worked for the MOD part of that was working with the Fleet Air Arm and their rule of thumb was needing 3 ship to guarantee one always being available and with Trident 4 as that allows for one being deployed and then the other returning to port from deployment while having one on station.

To have one available, one of them at any time one will be typically going through repairs, maintenance or a refit and a second, training and working up to full fighting efficiency and finally one fully operational and normally on a deployment or exercise.

At the time a good example of this was the three Invincible class carriers, (or 'through deck cruisers' for political purposes where the Labour Government at the time of their proposal and design would not allow the RN to have a new class of carriers ), so they always had one available. As the class was designed for helicopter operations when Harriers were added the maintenance facilities got very cramped with having to have the extra spares, test equipment and repair facilities for them.

Where the RN now has so few escorts unscheduled maintenance causes major scheduling and deployment problems with Type 45 engine troubles being a good example.

The first Type 26 frigate HMS Glasgow won't be operational until 2025 and not in service until 2027. A full 7 years after the first carrier is in service. We used to be able to build ships much faster than this with Admiral John 'Jackie' Fisher making sure that HMS Dreadnought was build in only 12 months, so it was finished before the politicians had a chance to cancel it where there was much opposition to such a new radical ship design. Without his vision, drive, bluntness, experience and political skills it would probably not have been built.... and then of course the rest is history, so from that point onwards where the design was so revolutionary you had older pre-dreadnought and then dreadnought battleships and the UK / German battleship arms race on the run up to WWI. Where it was the first of a new design it did not have a long service life where they found it had several major operational problems which were corrected on later designs.

It was built in 12 months by using many components from builds parts already available "in stock".

What is interesting is that HMS Dreadnought was very revolutionary at the time in 1906, but by the Battle of Jutland in 1916 it was obsolete, with the super-dreadnoughts of the Queen Elizabeth being the true trend setters, and very advanced compared to any other nations battleships. These took 3 years to build from designing in 1912 to the first of the 5 built commissioned in 1915.  The most famous of these, despite many scrapes with calamity, was HMS Warspite that was in service up to the end of WW2 before being scrapped after she ran aground under tow to the breakers yard. Only one of the class, HMS Barham, was lost in action during WW2 being infamously filmed capsizing after being torpedoed then blowing up.

They were considered to be the best battleships ever built by Britain, and I hope that the new Queen Elizabeth carriers last as long and are as successful

[Lizzie Zoom]

......I must emphasis that it was due to the foresight and advanced action by Fisher that many parts were availble to build HMS Dreadnought before it's build had been approved. This ship certainly started a massive arms race with Germany, which in British terms meant the priority was to build many dreadnoughts ready for what was seen to be the inevitable war with the former, and further advance the British policy in force since 1897 to create an advanced Royal Navy to a two power standard.

 That "fever" and need is what is missing now, as it seems we are not preparing for what I see as an inevitable conflict to come.

[Rods2]

......I must emphasis that it was due to the foresight and advanced action by Fisher that many parts were availble to build HMS Dreadnought before it's build had been approved. This ship certainly started a massive arms race with Germany, which in British terms meant the priority was to build many dreadnoughts ready for what was seen to be the inevitable war with the former, and further advance the British policy in force since 1897 to create an advanced Royal Navy to a two power standard.

 That "fever" and need is what is missing now, as it seems we are not preparing for what I see as an inevitable conflict to come.

That was part of his strategy, so it could be built fast enough before the politicians had chance to cancel it, where it was an 'unofficial' project. Like many shapers in society he didn't like 'no' as an answer and would bully and press on regardless to get the result he wanted. A winning combination of good vision and bloody minded determination. During one animated conversation with the king, the king had to ask him to stop waving his pointed finger in his face. He could see the danger from Germany and predicted in 1911 that the next European war would begin once the Kiel Canal was finished, he was one month out on the start of WWI.