67th Tigers Posted September 29, 2007 Posted September 29, 2007 from http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070929/tuk-...vy-a7ad41d.html LONDON (AFP) - Officials at Britain's defence ministry have reportedly put together proposals that would dramatically reduce the Royal Navy's fleet. Citing details e-mailed to it by a source within the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the Sunday Telegraph reported that because of strains on the MoD's budget in upcoming years, five warships could be decommissioned from April. The source told the paper that the cuts would reduce the Royal Navy's capacity to just "one small-scale operation". According to the source, the government's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), which allocated an annual increase in defence spending of 1.5 percent above inflation, sparked rows between senior MoD officials and junior finance minister Andy Burnham. In addition to that, commitments to buy two aircraft carriers at a total cost of four billion pounds (5.7 billion euros, 8.1 billion dollars) forced the MoD to tighten its belt, the Telegraph said. "The Chief Sec (Chief Secretary to the Treasury Burnham) directed that no further money from the CSR would be allocated to defence and to maintain force levels the dept must find the savings/cuts," the source told the newspaper. "For the RN (Royal Navy), the poor CSR deal and the commitment to two carriers is such that a proposal for the immediate decommissioning of five ships (frigates and destroyers) from April next year has been considered. "This would reduce the RN's capabilities to just one small-scale operation and that is it." The source also provided an internal MoD briefing paper that said that, assuming no further commissioning of ships, the combined size of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary could fall from its current level of 103 to 50 within 20 years. An MoD spokesman did not confirm the report. "No decisions have been taken to make changes to force structures," he said. "As ever, we continually review the defence programme. The CSR settlement sees the continuation of the longest period of sustained real-terms growth in planned defence spending since the 1980s." MoD sources cited by Britain's domestic Press Association also dismissed the idea that the Royal Navy's capacity could fall by more than half, and said that documents such as those cited by the Telegraph's source were produced as a matter of routine.
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Here's a flame worthy question... Does Britain really need CVLs? Shouldn't they be going for more modest LPH type things if their budget is so tight? They could still base a squadron of F-35s off the things. I seems to be that their major failing in the Falklands was a coherent AAW screen. Now we have the Type 45s coming on-line. Problem (presumably) solved. It seems wasteful to pay off Type 23s so soon. - John
Jim Martin Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 I didn't know that Britain had 5 more frigates to cut. Pathetic.
Guest pfcem Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Does Britain really need CVLs? Shouldn't they be going for more modest LPH type things if their budget is so tight? They could still base a squadron of F-35s off the things.No, what Britain "needs" (how one defines need is subject to interpretation of course) is a couple (preferrable three) proper CTOL CVNs but they simply can not afford them. The carriers they have designed & hoping to build are big enough but they are trying to get them "on the cheap" & thus they will not be what the SHOULD be (ESPECIALLY given the size that they are)... But you are correct, given Britains buget limitations something more along the lines of Italy's new Cavour to replace the Ark Royal class on a one-for-one basis would be more realistic. I seems to be that their major failing in the Falklands was a coherent AAW screen. Now we have the Type 45s coming on-line. Problem (presumably) solved. It seems wasteful to pay off Type 23s so soon.More specifically what was & I still is lacking is a proper AEW aircraft & supersonic interceptor/fleet defence fighter. Sea Kings fitted with a maritime surveillance radar is a VERY poor substitute (although better than nothing). The Type 45s do NOTHING to correct this (although they SHOULD do a much better job of defending the fleet against targets they are able to detect & engage).
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) I didn't know that Britain had 5 more frigates to cut. Pathetic. They have thirteen Type 23s and four Type 22s. Presumably the Type 22s will be the next to go, but they just got done paying off three Type 23s that were less than 10 years old, so who knows. RN fleet planning is really fucked up. I think somebody here once mentioned that the words "fitted for, but not with" are used way too much. Also the "new" scandal is how Type 42s are slowly being left with a missile system that can't fire missiles. The Sea Darts have exceeded their shelf life, but the Type 45s aren't being made fast enough to replace the Type 42s. It's doubtful they'll make their quota of eight, unless the Saudis buy some. Here's a You Tube video of a Type 42/Sea Dart missile malfunction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IosXz9rNsJw But on the bright side, even if they cut five more frigates, they'll still be "bigger" than the German Navy. For whatever that's worth anymore. - John Edited September 30, 2007 by Kensuke
swerve Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) Here's a flame worthy question... Does Britain really need CVLs? ... - John I wouldn't call 65000 real tons a CVL Edited September 30, 2007 by swerve
Tomas Hoting Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Chile's navy already uses the 3 former Royal Navy Type 23 frigates. Maybe they want to buy some more?
Junior FO Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) ... Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) I wouldn't call 65000 real tons a CVL All things considered, it still is. The Nimitz class is 102,000 tons. Though I suppose one could argue that the US CVs and CVNs are all SUPERcarriers and thus shifted the classification terminology yet again. But more to a point, the design parameters they are built around, namely being STOVL mean that its going to be extremely limited no matter how big it is. Which again, begs the point as to why they are bothering going so big and siphoning obscene amounts of money from the rest of their surface fleet when they could get almost the same capabilities but with a smaller aircraft complement using an LHD type ship? This is, IMO, going to be their undoing. The budget won't support it. Either they think more realistic about the carriers, or they gut their escort capability. They can't have both. Hell has apparently frozen over, because I actually agree with pfcem's points, except that a the size isn't really the issue as much as the lack of CTOL is. The RN could build something like the 40,000-ton Charles de Gaulle (possibly even conventionally powered to save money) and still be better off than the current design on the drawing board. The lack of AEW aircraft like the E-2 is going to hurt. The Sea King is a poor substitute. I've heard somebody floating the idea of converting the Osprey into a AEW aircraft, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen. All told, the RN surface fleet is really more of a high end green water navy with a very flawed blue water capability (as seen in the Falklands). - John Edited September 30, 2007 by Kensuke
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Given the current budget realities I wonder if the Navy will start looking at ships similar to the La Fayette class in order to get the necessary number of hulls at least for patrolling/show the flag duties. The LAST thing the RN needs is to build additional frigates until they take a cold hard look at reality and figure out what they want their surface fleet to look like in 5 years time. The Type 45s OTOH *need* to be built. - John
TonyE Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 RN fleet planning is really fucked up. I think somebody here once mentioned that the words "fitted for, but not with" are used way too much. If they keep this up the RN will be going for "Fitted for, but not with, ships."
Ol Paint Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) All things considered, it still is. The Nimitz class is 102,000 tons. Though I suppose one could argue that the US CVs and CVNs are all SUPERcarriers and thus shifted the classification terminology yet again. But more to a point, the design parameters they are built around, namely being STOVL mean that its going to be extremely limited no matter how big it is. Which again, begs the point as to why they are bothering going so big and siphoning obscene amounts of money from the rest of their surface fleet when they could get almost the same capabilities but with a smaller aircraft complement using an LHD type ship? This is, IMO, going to be their undoing. The budget won't support it. Either they think more realistic about the carriers, or they gut their escort capability. They can't have both. Hell has apparently frozen over, because I actually agree with pfcem's points, except that a the size isn't really the issue as much as the lack of CTOL is. The RN could build something like the 40,000-ton Charles de Gaulle (possibly even conventionally powered to save money) and still be better off than the current design on the drawing board. The lack of AEW aircraft like the E-2 is going to hurt. The Sea King is a poor substitute. I've heard somebody floating the idea of converting the Osprey into a AEW aircraft, but somehow I don't think that's going to happen. All told, the RN surface fleet is really more of a high end green water navy with a very flawed blue water capability (as seen in the Falklands). - JohnExcept the RN CVFs are built with CTOL in mind. They just won't have catapults fitted, as far as I recall, since they will operate the F-35B STOVL aircraft. Should it be desirable (say to include E-2D or similar fixed-wing AEW), they could convert to a STOBAR by installing the arresting gear and leaving the ski-jump in place, or go full CATOBAR. Buying more hull than is absolutely required is cheaper than stretching a hull that's too small to gain flight deck. The Charles de Gaulle is a good example of that problem and the cost to fix it (and they were only off by a little bit). Douglas Edited September 30, 2007 by Ol Paint
Junior FO Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) ... Edited September 19, 2024 by Junior FO
dpapp2 Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 The two most important reason for choosing STOVL for CVF were 1/ higher sortie rate2/ better bad-weather capability.Cost comes only third. The CTOL option was there for insurance against the cancellation of the F-35B, and as a bargain chip to get the source codes. Size: US carrier displacement is SHORT tons. UK is metric. Therefore, 102,000t full load for the Nimitz class is 93,000t metric, the 80,000t of the JFK is ~72,000t. Meanwhile CVF is at 65,000t, with a 10,000t displacement margin.Nimitz class has ~18,000m2 deck area. CVF has 15,000m2. CdG ~12,000.CVF hangar area is small, 4,700m2 (comparable to CdG AFAIK). I could not google up any hangar deck size for the Nimitz.CVF air group is 36+4, while according to hangar arrangement drawings another 8 F-35B can be crammed onto the ship.Currently, the CVNs are operating usually 56+8 a/c, 50% more than CVF. How many F-35Cs they will be operating on board, I have no idea. How many modern aircrafts the JFK could operate, I have no data either. If we insist on having a CVL designation, i'd limit that to carriers that cannot take more than 24 A/C. CVF and CdG has much better operational flexibility than whatever the INS Vikramaditya/Minas Gerais would offer with limited air wings.
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) Except the RN CVFs are built with CTOL in mind. No they're not. Again, this another bit of that "fitted for but not with" bullshit. The IDEA is that in the distant future the ski-jump can be removed and catapults (supposedly electro-magnetic) and arresting wires can be installed, but is NOT in the initial design and isn't projected to happen for about 20 years and who knows where the RN will be then. I think the only reason why they even thought of the possibility of STOBAR or CATOBAR is if the F-35B took a dump and they had to default to either a navalized Typhoon or buy Rafales. This doesn't look like it'll happen anymore, so they fell back at this half-assed method that limits the choice of aircraft they can operate. In all, it was a totally screwed up design process. They just won't have catapults fitted, as far as I recall, since they will operate the F-35B STOVL aircraft. See above. Should it be desirable (say to include E-2D or similar fixed-wing AEW), they could convert to a STOBAR by installing the arresting gear and leaving the ski-jump in place, or go full CATOBAR. I not sure the E-2 has the horsepower to reliably ski-jump without JATO bottles. I know the Russians would have used their Yak-44 AEW aircraft on the cancelled Ulyanovsk Supercarriers (which would have been CATOBAR). STOBAR would be a cheap enough fix if they could get the E-2 to play game. Buying more hull than is absolutely required is cheaper than stretching a hull that's too small to gain flight deck. The Charles de Gaulle is a good example of that problem and the cost to fix it (and they were only off by a little bit). Except the CdG has full CATOBAR capability *NOW*, design goof-ups aside. Again, this is the worst idea. The better solutions are to either: 1. Go full CATOBAR now. Prohibitively expensive. Won't happen unless the RN gets a windfall of money. 2. Go with a smaller and cheaper STOVL or VTOL design. Severely limits expansion and capability, but won't break the bank and might save them from having to sell off more of their surface fleet. In the end, they are really no worse off than they are with the Invincible-class. - John Edited September 30, 2007 by Kensuke
Ol Paint Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 No they're not. Again, this another bit of that "fitted for but not with" bullshit. The IDEA is that in the distant future the ski-jump can be removed and catapults (supposedly electro-magnetic) and arresting wires can be installed, but is NOT in the initial design and isn't projected to happen for about 20 years and who knows where the RN will be then. I think the only reason why they even thought of the possibility of STOBAR or CATOBAR is if the F-35B took a dump and they had to default to either a navalized Typhoon or buy Rafales. This doesn't look like it'll happen anymore, so they fell back at this half-assed method that limits the choice of aircraft they can operate. In all, it was a totally screwed up design process. See above.I not sure the E-2 has the horsepower to reliably ski-jump without JATO bottles. I know the Russians would have used their Yak-44 AEW aircraft on the cancelled Ulyanovsk Supercarriers (which would have been CATOBAR). STOBAR would be a cheap enough fix if they could get the E-2 to play game. Except the CdG has full CATOBAR capability *NOW*, design goof-ups aside. Again, this is the worst idea. The better solutions are to either: 1. Go full CATOBAR now. Prohibitively expensive. Won't happen unless the RN gets a windfall of money. 2. Go with a smaller and cheaper STOVL or VTOL design. Severely limits expansion and capability, but won't break the bank and might save them from having to sell off more of their surface fleet. In the end, they are really no worse off than they are with the Invincible-class. - JohnThat "fitted but not with" is much more important than you are giving credit for. If the design provides the structural reinforcement, weight, power, and volume to accept the catapults and arresting gear, then the hardest part of a future conversion is taken care of. Catapult and arresting gear is subject to revision, just like any other piece of equipment. While the designers don't know exactly what configuration the future catapult or arresting wire will have, they can provide the space and sufficient structural foundations to adapt whatever gear comes out 20 years from now to the hull. The bigger problem would be if the ship weren't designed with regard to the future equipment installation. Then, you might find you have to relocate CIC to install the catapult trough. Or that the arresting wire brakes need to go where the deck edge elevator is. Or, everything goes aboard just fine, but you have to move the island because the aircraft wing won't clear when it is on the launch track. It is routine to leave space and weight available for systems that you think might be coming aboard in the future. LPD-17 doesn't have VLS cells in the foredeck--but there is space & weight reserved for them. Ships routinely outlast the air wings that serve aboard. In the '60s, it seemed like a good idea to design ships to take STOVL only. Today, there is only one new STOVL combat aircraft program suitable for the CV mission--the F-35. It would be a bad investment for the RN to purchase a ship with a 40-50 year lifespan on the hopes that there will be an aircraft program in the future to replace the F-35. Or to hope they can procure new-build STOVL F-35s at that time. Northrop Grumman has proposed operating the E-2 off of ski-jumps in recent times. Both to the RN and the Indian Navy. Apparently, the steep ramps would require modifying the nose gear (probably a longer stroke gear to prevent the oleos from bottoming out). The version for the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya reportedly required a reduction in endurance from 5hr to 1hr, but it is unknown what the allowable takeoff run was and how that would compare to the CVF. There is a third option, which would be to install a waist catapult for launching the E-2 and similar COD/AEW aircraft. But, since the RN does not currently operate a fixed wing AEW aircraft, the logical answer is to build the ship as STOVL, design it to accept CATOBAR equipment at a later date with minimal structural modification, and see how the USN EMALS program shapes up. The RN doesn't have to kick in any EMALS R&D money and can pick up a production set or two after all the bugs are worked out. Another benefit to the RN is that they can also watch the USN UCAV-N (or whatever the program is currently called), USCG Eagle Eye, USN VTUAV, etc. and see if they want to go for some form of UAS for AEW/COD/ASW. They can then pick the best option, be it fixed-wing, rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, or even aerostat, manned or unmanned. And if the RN were to buy a CATOBAR equipped vessel right now, then what? Is the ship's force going to waste manpower maintaining & training on a system that the RN doesn't have aircraft equipped to use? If the F-35B/Sea King AEW package proves sufficient to the needs of the RN for the next 20 years, why penalize the ship & aircraft performance by eliminating the ski-jump in favor of a catapult that isn't being used? No ski-jump = longer takeoff runs = less deck area for aircraft spotting/prep/staging = fewer aircraft. Bad trade off. If they buy a STOVL only vessel now, what happens when they decide that fixed-wing AEW would be better or they want to procure a JSF replacement and the USMC has gone to CATOBAR or tilt-rotor UCAV-N? Then, do you build a bigger hull and scrap ships with 50-60% of their service life remaining? Another bad trade. The point isn't that the Charles de Gaulle wasn't "fixed"--it is that it cost much more to add a few feet to the flight deck after the ship was built than it would have if it had been designed a little longer in the first place. If the RN opts for an Invincible-sized carrier now and, in 20 years, decides to operate a CATOBAR UCAS, how much is a plug+blister+re-engine+re-shaft+re-prop going to cost then? And can you guarantee that this extensive modification is going to produce a better ship than the one purpose-designed from the start? Not a chance. I won't argue about whether the CVF is "breaking the bank" since I don't know enough about the UK budget to try. I will say that everything spent to date is gone and that scrapping the program at this point to change to a STOVL carrier would probably end up costing more in the end. On the upside, with the added delay caused by a complete re-design, the ship could be designed to accept the JSF® and skip another generation of carrier-borne fighters altogether! Douglas
Jim Martin Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 Certainly HMG could afford a decent navy. Just gut the British Welfare State. Got a red ink pen? I'll fix your problem in about an hour.
Kensuke Posted September 30, 2007 Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) That "fitted but not with" is much more important than you are giving credit for. If the design provides the structural reinforcement, weight, power, and volume to accept the catapults and arresting gear, then the hardest part of a future conversion is taken care of. Catapult and arresting gear is subject to revision, just like any other piece of equipment. Catapult and arresting gear have not had any major changes made to them in the almost 50 years of use. So much so that the French just bought the same equipment used on the Nimitz (C13-3 steam catapult). The major revolution will supposedly be EM instead of steam for the catapults, but we're not quite there yet. It's doubtful whether or not they'll even make them into the first couple of CVN-78s. Nor does it any way indicate that the current technology is broken. Off the shelf solutions designed for use with the EM catapult will HAVE to be backwards compatible with the steam catapult owing to to the fact that's what the majority of carriers use. Those Nimitz-class aren't going to go the way of the dodo for years. While the designers don't know exactly what configuration the future catapult or arresting wire will have, they can provide the space and sufficient structural foundations to adapt whatever gear comes out 20 years from now to the hull. Agree on the second point. The bigger problem would be if the ship weren't designed with regard to the future equipment installation. Then, you might find you have to relocate CIC to install the catapult trough. Or that the arresting wire brakes need to go where the deck edge elevator is. Or, everything goes aboard just fine, but you have to move the island because the aircraft wing won't clear when it is on the launch track. It is routine to leave space and weight available for systems that you think might be coming aboard in the future. LPD-17 doesn't have VLS cells in the foredeck--but there is space & weight reserved for them. My point is that ALL of this adds considerable cost for a feature that WON'T be installed for about 20 years. Is this worth cannibalizing their escort fleet? I would say no. I'm all for "forward thinking", but not if it leaves your ass hanging out in the wind. Ships routinely outlast the air wings that serve aboard. In the '60s, it seemed like a good idea to design ships to take STOVL only. Today, there is only one new STOVL combat aircraft program suitable for the CV mission--the F-35. It would be a bad investment for the RN to purchase a ship with a 40-50 year lifespan on the hopes that there will be an aircraft program in the future to replace the F-35. Or to hope they can procure new-build STOVL F-35s at that time.Considering the current average service length for an RN vessel, I'd say you're being rather optimistic with that 40-50 year lifespan. Plus, it hurts less to replace a cheaper ship two decades down the road than it does to go two decades with a Navy that's a shadow of its former self and can barely accomplish the missions its' given. Northrop Grumman has proposed operating the E-2 off of ski-jumps in recent times. Both to the RN and the Indian Navy. Apparently, the steep ramps would require modifying the nose gear (probably a longer stroke gear to prevent the oleos from bottoming out). The version for the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya reportedly required a reduction in endurance from 5hr to 1hr, but it is unknown what the allowable takeoff run was and how that would compare to the CVF. If they had to reduce endurance 80% to get it to work it's probably because it has to take off with minimal load, which in this case means significantly less fuel available. Plus redesign of the landing gear would possibly require additional modifications and its not always easy teaching an old dog new tricks (see RAN and RNZN's Sea Sprite fiasco). What this means is that no...a E-2D can't operate in STOBAR mode without modifications and a severe reduction in mission capability. Then it becomes a cost/benefit analysis to see whether or not the increase in radar range outweighs the decline in endurance and current availability of the Sea King ASaC7. In summary, you're probably better off going "clean sheet" with a AEW aircraft specifically designed for a STOBAR operation. This is by no means an unsurmountable challenge, but its yet another thing the RN will have to pay for instead of buying off the shelf solutions. There is a third option, which would be to install a waist catapult for launching the E-2 and similar COD/AEW aircraft. But, since the RN does not currently operate a fixed wing AEW aircraft, the logical answer is to build the ship as STOVL, design it to accept CATOBAR equipment at a later date with minimal structural modification, and see how the USN EMALS program shapes up. The RN doesn't have to kick in any EMALS R&D money and can pick up a production set or two after all the bugs are worked out. Another benefit to the RN is that they can also watch the USN UCAV-N (or whatever the program is currently called), USCG Eagle Eye, USN VTUAV, etc. and see if they want to go for some form of UAS for AEW/COD/ASW. They can then pick the best option, be it fixed-wing, rotary-wing, tilt-rotor, or even aerostat, manned or unmanned.All of which is good and fine except they won't have the capability for years down the road and costs continue to mount. And if the RN were to buy a CATOBAR equipped vessel right now, then what? Is the ship's force going to waste manpower maintaining & training on a system that the RN doesn't have aircraft equipped to use? The way I see it, the ink is not yet dry on the F-35B purchase and the Invincibles aren't quite rusting hulks. But in any event, it's a moot point because I've already pointed out that a full-on CATOBAR design is wholly impractical at this juncture. If the F-35B/Sea King AEW package proves sufficient to the needs of the RN for the next 20 years, why penalize the ship & aircraft performance by eliminating the ski-jump in favor of a catapult that isn't being used?As far as I know, the Sea King ASaC7 is *barely* adequate for today's use and is at-best a band aid solution based on current STOVL/STOBAR related options. If they buy a STOVL only vessel now, what happens when they decide that fixed-wing AEW would be better or they want to procure a JSF replacement and the USMC has gone to CATOBAR or tilt-rotor UCAV-N? Then, do you build a bigger hull and scrap ships with 50-60% of their service life remaining? Another bad trade. And I fail to see how its any worse than a ship that can only use some of its presumed capabilities, and costs a considerable amount more. I guess we're just going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. Normally it would NOT be an issue if it weren't for the fact that it's apparently having a severe impact on the number of hulls available to HMN. It's silly to bitch about *maybe* having to throw away 20 year old aircraft carriers down the road, and at the same time excusing the pay-off of seven frigates that were all built in the last decade, and keeping AAW Destroyers around longer that can barely do the job. Just so you might not have to face that option down the road. - John Edited September 30, 2007 by Kensuke
Guest pfcem Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 The two most important reason for choosing STOVL for CVF were 1/ higher sortie rate2/ better bad-weather capability. Currently, the CVNs are operating usually 56+8 a/c, 50% more than CVF.Which is WAY down from wat they operated in the 1970's & 1980's. Airgroups consisted of 60 fighter & attack aircraft, 22-25 support aircraft (10 ASW & 4-5 each of AEW, EW & tanker) & 6 helicopters. If we insist on having a CVL designation, i'd limit that to carriers that cannot take more than 24 A/C. CVF and CdG has much better operational flexibility than whatever the INS Vikramaditya/Minas Gerais would offer with limited air wings.I don't think anybody is insisting on a CVL designation but the truth is that as they are currently envisioned the CVF are really nothing more than very big, very expensive STOVL carriers (aka CVL). It is a real waist of tonnage to build a 65,000 ton carrier & not give it full CTOL capability. The only capability (airgroup) increase they will have over smaller STOVL carriers will be a larger number of aircraft. They will still lack a proper AEW aircraft AND despite how good the F-35B will be, for about the same cost they could be getting the notably more capable F-35C. If the RN is going to continue to INSIST on the F-35B then it will be better off to build smaller, less expensive carriers that will in fact (despite their smaller size) have nearly the same capability (as a carrier) as the 65,000 ton CVF.
Corinthian Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 In other news, the Philippines, an archipelagic country, still has no naval warships at least the size of corvettes....
Guest pfcem Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 That "fitted but not with" is much more important than you are giving credit for.In reality "fitted but not with" is just a way of saying "something we should have but don't have because we are trying to save a few bucks at the expensice of capability". If the design provides the structural reinforcement, weight, power, and volume to accept the catapults and arresting gear, then the hardest part of a future conversion is taken care of.Which doesn't mean jack unless it actually is installed & even then your are sacrificing capability NOW. Northrop Grumman has proposed operating the E-2 off of ski-jumps in recent times. Both to the RN and the Indian Navy. Apparently, the steep ramps would require modifying the nose gear (probably a longer stroke gear to prevent the oleos from bottoming out). The version for the Gorshkov/Vikramaditya reportedly required a reduction in endurance from 5hr to 1hr, but it is unknown what the allowable takeoff run was and how that would compare to the CVF.Pretty significant reduction don't you think. There is a third option, which would be to install a waist catapult for launching the E-2 and similar COD/AEW aircraft. But, since the RN does not currently operate a fixed wing AEW aircraft, the logical answer is to build the ship as STOVL, design it to accept CATOBAR equipment at a later date with minimal structural modification, and see how the USN EMALS program shapes up.No, the logical answer is to drop the all STOVL BS, build the CVF as CTOL and but E-2D & F-35C. Of course they would still have the budget problem to deal with but at least than they would not be waisting good money & good ships on a half assed solution to their lack of proper carrier capability. Although just going with one catapult for launching the E-2 and similar COD/AEW aircraft would at least be a half ways decent compromise. And if the RN were to buy a CATOBAR equipped vessel right now, then what? Is the ship's force going to waste manpower maintaining & training on a system that the RN doesn't have aircraft equipped to use?No, they buy aircraft to utilize that capability. If the F-35B/Sea King AEW package proves sufficient to the needs of the RN for the next 20 years, why penalize the ship & aircraft performance by eliminating the ski-jump in favor of a catapult that isn't being used? No ski-jump = longer takeoff runs = less deck area for aircraft spotting/prep/staging = fewer aircraft. Bad trade off.Becasue we already KNOW that the F-35B/Sea King AEW package will be a significant loss in capability over the F-35C/E-2D package the CVF could/should have. If they buy a STOVL only vessel now, what happens when they decide that fixed-wing AEW would be better or they want to procure a JSF replacement and the USMC has gone to CATOBAR or tilt-rotor UCAV-N? Then, do you build a bigger hull and scrap ships with 50-60% of their service life remaining? Another bad trade.They are planning to build STOVL only vessels now. If the RN was to decide it just can't afford the CVF & switches to a smaller, less expensive CVL Then they don't HAVE to scrap them later if Britain obtains the funds for proper carriers later. But it does appear now that in order to pay for the CVF the RN is having to other needed warships with much of their service life remaining. The point isn't that the Charles de Gaulle wasn't "fixed"--it is that it cost much more to add a few feet to the flight deck after the ship was built than it would have if it had been designed a little longer in the first place. If the RN opts for an Invincible-sized carrier now and, in 20 years, decides to operate a CATOBAR UCAS, how much is a plug+blister+re-engine+re-shaft+re-prop going to cost then? And can you guarantee that this extensive modification is going to produce a better ship than the one purpose-designed from the start? Not a chance.No, but at least they will have saved A LOT of money & not had to pay-off half (purposeful exaggeration for emphasis) its surface fleet. I won't argue about whether the CVF is "breaking the bank" since I don't know enough about the UK budget to try. I will say that everything spent to date is gone and that scrapping the program at this point to change to a STOVL carrier would probably end up costing more in the end. On the upside, with the added delay caused by a complete re-design, the ship could be designed to accept the JSF® and skip another generation of carrier-borne fighters altogether!The initial post of this thread makes it pretty clear that the RN is having to consider paying off five current warships (frigates & destroyers) in order to pay for the CFVs. I agree that scrapping the CVF would be bad for the RN but if they can't afford them...a pair of say 30,000 ton CVLs they CAN afford would be better than having to SLEP the Invincible class or buy old US LHAs (Tarawa class - which the RN would most likely have to wait for the US to finish replacements for).
Kensuke Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 In other news, the Philippines, an archipelagic country, still has no naval warships at least the size of corvettes.... According to the information I have in front of me, you guys have one WWII era DE, and three ex-British light corvettes. What the hell happened? I know your F-5s fell apart, but Jesus.... - John
Phil Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Certainly HMG could afford a decent navy. Just gut the British Welfare State. Got a red ink pen? I'll fix your problem in about an hour. Well go on then, how would you do it?
Jim Martin Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 Well go on then, how would you do it? Stop feeding welfare mums and indigent worthless bums, and start properly equipping the men and women that HMG sends into harm's way. Great Britain used to have the world's most powerful navy. Now they're slashing ships left and right, and they're giving troops uniforms that come apart after a few weeks' wear, and boots that fall off their feet. I'm sure the folks on the dole appreciate the sacrifices their lads are making for their free ride. I understand there's a severe shortage of Brit helos for resupply in 'Stan as well. We have the same problem over here, but not quite so critical. For the politicians to say there's "No money" to do right by the troops and sailors however, is absolute horseshite. But free meals buy votes. Bullets, bandaids, and lives saved on the thin red line don't further too many political careers.
swerve Posted October 1, 2007 Posted October 1, 2007 .... Given the current budget realities I wonder if the Navy will start looking at ships similar to the La Fayette class in order to get the necessary number of hulls at least for patrolling/show the flag duties. Something a bit smaller - an OPVH fit for chasing pirates, drug-smugglers, etc, the S. Atlantic station, MCM with ROVs . . . "C3 is currently envisaged as a vessel of approximately 2,000 tonnes displacement with a range of 7,000 nm for constabulary and minor war vessel tasks. Cdr Brunton said "We see this vessel being used for maritime security and interdiction operations. It would also have a large mission bay aft, reconfigurable for special forces, MCM or a Lynx helicopter." http://navy-matters.beedall.com/s2c2.htm
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now