New British Carriers, cutbacks and CATOBAR vs STOVL

Status
Not open for further replies.
Furious, Eagle and Ark Royal. Three good carrier names. Now someone design the ships
 
Thanks for the insight, AG.

But it’s not being named for her. It’s being named the HMS Queen Elizabeth, the current monarch is HRH Queen Elizabeth II
Click to expand...

I think that most people think it's being named for the current Queen, likewise with 'Prince of Wales'...

His dad King Edward VI started the tradition with the first lead ship of battleships being named directly for him.
Click to expand...

Think you mean Edward VII (9/11/1841-6/5/1910, king from 22/11/1901)
Edward VI (12/10/1537-6/7/1553, king from 28/1/1547) was a bit early for battleships...

QEII’s father declined the honour and insisted that the lead new battleship of his reign be called HMS King George V after his father.
Click to expand...

But ISTR they did build and name a ship 'Duke of York', which was his title before he became George VI.

The other point I was alluding to was that no 'major' warship has been built in Britain since 1950, when the old Ark Royal was launched;
this is, of course, before the current monarch ascended to the throne.
Maybe the politicians were right, and one wasn't needed, but I don't know...


cheers,
Robin.
 
I think it may also be that while the cruise liner RMS Queen Elizabeth 2 (QE2) was around naming a fighting ship after her was seen as duplicative.

I can also understand not wanting a ship named after a living person, in case of mishaps, sinking, scandal from the named person (PoW - Charles - imagine the linkage back in the Diana divorce days etc., or worse yet, HMS Princess of Wales, Duke of York (Andrew - any whiff of scandal??) etc. They are a rum bunch, the royals!).

I'm sure a public vote would go for HMS Kate and HMS Wills. But personally naming them after previous ships with 'fighting' names (e.g. Invincible) seems better to me.
 
RMS QE2 was named after the original RMS Queen Elizabeth, not Queen Elizabeth II. Likewise, the RMS Queen Mary 2 is named after the original RMS Queen Mary.
 
Both the RN and the USN seem all over the place on this one. The USN has a submarine named after a living US President (Jimmy Carter-when the sub entered service). It is building a carrier named after the first President Bush. I am not sure when the Reagan entered service, but it was close.
British nuclear submarines were originally named after battleships and battlecruisers to show that they were the new capital ships of the Navy. Why this was dropped for the A class I do not know. The Type 45s have been named for the Daring class destroyers which makes sense as they do not fit into the ordinary destroyer mould being larger and more capable.
I would have preferred to see carrier names stick to the pattern of using former carrier names: Ark Royal, Eagle, Hermes, Furious etc The V class submarine nabbed "Victorious" as at the time it was unlikely full carriers would be built again.
Serves the RN right that it chose silly names for its two carriers. I know some in the MOD called them Del Boy and Rodney for a long time.
 
Frankly I would rather the Type 45s were given cruiser names, towns or counties. Would make much more sense.
 
SL Interesting view on the Darings. Wasn't the problem that the town names had already
been doled out to Type 42s and Type 22s and the Type 23s had place names from their Dukedoms
eg Norfolk. Thus the MOD needed a dashing new series for its star air defence ships (which as you
have argued are the state of the art). Darings were a class of super destroyer, so seems logical.
Also some of the names are quite marshal.

County names would have been a bit dull (and difficult to choose for only 6 ships). Traditional cruiser names
though covered a wider remit, leaving aside Colonies of course, so perhaps the Minotaur or similar or..

Think I's strayed off the carrier point. But can never resist.
 
Simply pick the names of the County class ships with the most interesting naval histories- job done.

Be careful about calling the T45 state of the art, it upsets some people around here. ;)
 
Devonshire. Hampshire. Kent. London. Fife. Glamorgan. Norfolk. Antrim? Oh and of course Nelson and Rodney were the first suggestions for the 2 carriers.
 
Regarding the RN ship naming policy, this from Wiki;

"It was originally envisaged that all Type 22s would have names beginning with 'B' (Broadsword, etc), following the 'A' names used for Type 21s (Amazon, etc). This changed when two under-construction ships (Sheffield and Coventry) were re-named to commemorate ships lost in the South Atlantic, with London being similarly honoured. The alphabetical progression was re-established with the Batch 3 ships (Cornwall, etc) before being temporarily abandoned with the Type 23 class, named after Dukedoms (Norfolk, Lancaster, etc). The Royal Navy's latest escort class (the Type 45 or Daring class) have re-introduced the alphabetical progression, using destroyer names from the 1930s and 1950s."

And of course RN submarines follow the same system, R-class Polaris boats, S and T class attack subs, and V-class Trident boats, now followed by the 'Astute' class.
[or should that be 'Aground' class??? ::) ]


cheers,
Robin.
 
I came across this at militaryphotos.net. It may just be wishful thinking, as some commentators pointed out, but...

Government ready for a U-turn over scrapped Harriers

By Michael Powell
Published on Thursday 28 April 2011 11:39


THE government is poised to make a sensational U-turn and bring Harrier jump jets back into Royal Navy service.

The News understands defence secretary Liam Fox is holding talks to put jets on HMS Illustrious.

The Portsmouth-based aircraft carrier is in Rosyth undergoing a multi-million pound refit to turn her into a helicopter carrier.

But it is understood Illustrious, which will return to Portsmouth on July 15, has been prepared in a way that accommodates Harriers.

This includes keeping the ramp on the flight deck, which has been given a new coat of special non-slip paint.

The Royal Navy’s jets were axed along with HMS Ark Royal in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), which has left the navy without any jets until at least 2020.

But while Ark Royal is up for sale, the jets are being stored in hangars and could be ready to fly with two months’ notice.

A senior navy source told The News: ‘The Harriers have only been mothballed so they could be brought back out to fly at any time. Until you crush something, it can be used.

‘We’ve still got the ramp on Illustrious so it’s a strong possibility this will happen.’

A number of Harrier spares need to be put back on the ship to bring the aircraft back into service.

‘It’s easily done,’ said the source, adding: ‘It just depends whether there is the political appetite for it to happen, which I hear there is... I wouldn’t fall off my chair if this happens.’

A U-turn on the jets would be embarrassing for the Prime Minister David Cameron, who made cuts to plug a £38bn hole in the MoD’s budget.

But a Whitehall source revealed: ‘Liam Fox has said to several people he wants the Harriers back.’

An MoD spokesman for Dr Fox denied this was the case, saying: ‘We stand by the decisions in the SDSR.

‘We said we will project power from land bases around the world and that is what we’re doing successfully in Libya.’

Sixty useable Harriers have been mothballed while Britain spends £30m a week on RAF raids over Libya.

But figures in the SDSR suggest an aircraft carrier with Harriers could do the job for £80m a year.

Beth Torvell of The Navy Campaign called for Harriers to be used in Libya.

She said: ‘Many other nations sent a carrier as their contribution to Libyan efforts. It’s high time Britain brought back carrier strike capability and rejoined the grown-ups’ table.’


Planes could yet be deployed in Libya


NEWS that the Harrier jets could make a return has been met with relief from within the Royal Navy.

The jets give Britain the ability to anchor off the coast of anywhere in the world and project air power from a moveable airfield.

With no end in sight for the mission in Libya, HMS Illustrious could provide a base for the Harriers.

The warship could sit 15 minutes from the target, saving an awful lot of time, fuel and money in the process.

As it stands, running the air operations in Libya is costing £30m a week on basing RAF jets, their crews and ground staff in Italy, plus fuel and ammunition. The hotel bills alone are reportedly costing £40,000 a night. By comparison, MoD figures show running operations from an aircraft carrier with 24 Harriers would cost £80m a year.

But the political sensitivities of bringing the Harriers back is embarrassing for the government, which at the moment is trying to deny such a plan exists.


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/east-hampshire/government_ready_for_a_u_turn_over_scrapped_harriers_1_2634058
 
sealordlawrence said:
Its nonsense.
Click to expand...

Well some of their conclusions are especially re-Illustrious as the paint and skijump are there already so would cost more to change, plus they may yet carry AV-8B of our allies in certain exercises or operations.

However the RAF do have a problem, their Aircrews only do 6 week tours so the turnaround is alot higher and the Tornado's are now covering Afghanistan and Libya operations. The Typhoons are even worse as they deployed the few aircraft and instructors qualified in both A2A & A2G operations, they need those aircraft back and the instructors to train the next lot of crews to replace them. In the meantime there is a pool of redundant harrier pilots awaiting P45's or reassignment including waiting for Typhoon training sat around along with their aircraft which would be ideal for the current overwatch phase of the Libya Operation.

As the popular coup hasn't occured in Libya and the stalemate has settled in the UK is faced with its allies in having to maintain a careful watch on the two sides when they were expecting the whole thing to be over with and winding down, allowing them to maintain just a token flight to keep the peace. The long haul will require a rethink and the Harriers may well come back into play.
 
sealordlawrence said:
I actually prefer Prince of Wales, its a nice pairing with Queen Elizabeth and raises thoughts of the old Battleship names, both the Dreadnought PoW's having interesting careers. There is also a certain honour to those who died aboard the KGV class ship both in action against Bismark and the ships sinking. Not to mention a certain irony in using the name of a ship sunk by aircraft (that was to have been escorted by a carrier) for an aircraft carrier.

Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Two of the old carriers were called HMS Glorious & HMS Courageous......

How about calling these new carriers HMS Gorgeous & HMS Fabulous ::)
 
Thorvic said:
The long haul will require a rethink and the Harriers may well come back into play.
Click to expand...

I bet they dont. ;)
 
Caravellarella said:
sealordlawrence said:
I actually prefer Prince of Wales, its a nice pairing with Queen Elizabeth and raises thoughts of the old Battleship names, both the Dreadnought PoW's having interesting careers. There is also a certain honour to those who died aboard the KGV class ship both in action against Bismark and the ships sinking. Not to mention a certain irony in using the name of a ship sunk by aircraft (that was to have been escorted by a carrier) for an aircraft carrier.

Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Two of the old carriers were called HMS Glorious & HMS Courageous......

How about calling these new carriers HMS Gorgeous & HMS Fabulous ::)
Click to expand...

:D
 
Eat the cost, build two proper big carriers bristling with CIWS guns and whatever passes for Sea Dart these days, and realise P.1154 with modern radar, avionics and weapons. Raise the ghost of Jacky Fisher to oversee the construction.

At least then we will have two ships that can defend themselves, and a supersonic VTOL capability.
 
This could spell even more trouble in the long term: Senate Appropriators Suggest $1.2B Cut to JSF

Key U.S. Senate appropriators are recommending a $1.2 billion reduction to the Defense Department’s fiscal 2012 request for the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter - in a move coordinated or checked with the Pentagon, to some degree - saying the funds are not needed with the program slowed as it is.
Click to expand...
 
Grey Havoc said:
This could spell even more trouble in the long term: Senate Appropriators Suggest $1.2B Cut to JSF

Key U.S. Senate appropriators are recommending a $1.2 billion reduction to the Defense Department’s fiscal 2012 request for the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter - in a move coordinated or checked with the Pentagon, to some degree - saying the funds are not needed with the program slowed as it is.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Ahh no. The budget cut is because they don't think the F-35 program will spend the money because they are behind in schedule. If so all it means is instead of the money sitting in Treasury waiting for F-35 to lodge receipts to spend the cash the US won't have to appropriate it this year. Its hardly significant to the project except F-35 PO won’t have some wiggle room.
 
Yeap it read more like a cap on the existing funding to match this years as next year will be more of the same, plus until they get the bug ironed out of the systems it pretty pointless ramping up production as those aircraft will be restricted beta release aircraft.

its in the next couple of months that will prove critical for the F-35 program as first they have the F-35B sea trials aboard US Wasp next month and if they prove to be troublesome the USMC are going to find themsleves backed into a corner. The other aspect is overall US DoD budget cuts and how deep these will prove to be, whilst the overall program is safe regard the F-35A numbers may be scaled back for the next decade and one the other two naval variants may have to justify their existence depending on how deep the cuts will go.

As far a the UK is concerned its watch this space, until something changes with regard to the F-35C its business as usual, but at least they have options for alternate aircraft should UK F-35C prove to be unviable, unlike the F-35B
 
Don't know if this is related but heard the other day that there's significant work going on currently with regard to Typhoon and landing on...

Regards,

S
 
Grey Havoc said:
It never rains, it pours: Navy aircraft carrier plans hit by further delays (Daily Telegraph)
Click to expand...
More Sh1t reporting by another half arsed fleet street hack without a clue and picking up the sensation threads on popular forums, much like the Shadow Defence Minister has.
It cobblers, yes the MOD don't know the price, don't know if the arrestor hook issue has been solved yet and what the impact to the program will be of the US deffering much of its orders till after 2017 (The UK is heavily reliant on the USN bringing the F-35C into service so delays there will effect the UK in-service date).
HOWEVER the UK govt have already said they won't order their first batch of production aircraft till late next year when the answers to those above questions will be known and the first Sea Trials of the F-35C should have taken place. Should there be some serious issues resulting from those answers then they will see what their options are as they still have plenty of time till the aircraft are required.
 
Seriously Mike the Gaurdian ...... :eek: that jpurnalist knows less than Jim Murphy and thats saying something !
Given that they have sold off the Harriers now, can you really see them going back to the F-35B even if its its only a stop gap measure to bring QE into Service in 2018.
 
Geoff, the cat flap comment said much about the story, but digging around a few contacts it does seem that the attempts to juggle budgets have led to some suggestions about going back to the B. It is now seen as less risky than before, the C has new issues, plus the B is very easy to land compared to a Harrier, or even a C. E.g. it uses the system trialled in the VAAC Harrier, which a journalist who could not drive a car managed to land - http://youtu.be/VhTH9TP6-1c


The whole saga is a farce, so it not would surprise me if they went back to reconsider the B, although I'd be very surprised if they re-order it.

EDIT: Torygraph also reporting it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9117367/Navy-aircraft-carrier-plans-hit-by-further-delays.html
 
The C model has a lot more internal fuel, ability to carry 2000lb internal stores and resulting 10,000lb higher MTOW which is 20% greater then an B model. This is a pretty big boost to capability for carriers which will have few fighters.


It really never made any real sense for the RN to be buying the B model in the first place before you even consider the other advantages of having catapults and wires in terms of operating future UAVs and well as manned support planes. I can't see the B model being reconsidered, all the more so when the orders for the catapults would have already been placed or need to be placed soon and they are very expensive items. The biggest advantage of a B model would be the ability to operate from very small land bases, but that isn't the greatest reason to neuter the plane in every other situation. HMS Ocean isn't going to last that far into the F-35 lifespan, if at all, so no big deal on not being able to fly from her with no ski jump anyway.
 
The VAAC control system rules!

Should save a fortune in training costs, pilots only have to learn how to fight the aircraft rather than land it safely. Wish they put it in all the Harrier's.

I would have thought you could use it in helicopters too.

Hope we do get some F-35B's after all.
 
There is another issue with going back to the B, the C is now regarded as the Tornado replacement whereas previously the B was a Harrier replacement. The SDSR finally reduced the RAF fast jet fleet to 2 types from 3 (where it had been at in terms of planning since the 80s when the fleet was 30 squadrons, now its 8) so reintroducing the B reduces the capability of the Tornado successor in terms of internal payload and range.


We are not in farce territory yet, only if the decision is made (which IMHO is unlikely), in the meantime it just seems to be a case of the ongoing discourse that characterises the fractious nature of the MoD/DE&S that periodically bubbles to the surface in the form of newspaper articles quoting "sources in the MoD" from "last night".
 
I think Spurious and Curious might be better names. Spurious can be the carrier with no aircraft that will be laid up as soon as she is launched.

Can you imagine a defence policy which could be any more absurd?
 
The kites are being flown, and the balloon is about to go up: Cost of refitting Royal Navy aircraft carrier trebles (Daily Telegraph)

Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion.

Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model. But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence’s original proposals.
Click to expand...
 
Considering the base price was around 3.5 billion pounds per ship, how on earth can this cost half of that? Even if they have to rebuild an engine room with new generators, and rip apart a huge path from that space to rebuilding the entire bow I cannot see how it would be that pricey.
 
harrier said:
Apparently LM are agnostic on which F-35 variant the UK gets:
Click to expand...


Of course they are, they get paid either way.
 
Is it known how much more expensive the 'B' is to operate than the 'C'? I ask because I can see positives (and maybe a few negatives...) in a force mix of both for the RAF / FAA.
 
shedofdread said:
Is it known how much more expensive the 'B' is to operate than the 'C'? I ask because I can see positives (and maybe a few negatives...) in a force mix of both for the RAF / FAA.
Click to expand...

Another question is whether or not the B is actually more expensive to operate, at least shipboard. It's a complex question.

Certainly the lift system adds costs regarding maintenance. On the other hand, it doesn't put as much load on the ship's resources (doesn't use catapult or arresting gear, so none of the manning or O&M costs of those can be "charged" to it). Also, the aircraft itself and its internal components are subject to far less stress because they aren't flung off one end and yanked to a stop at the other (while undergoing a "controlled crash" during the latter exercise) this will help them to last longer in better condition. Plus, there is usually no requirement for a recovery tanker, while there absolutely is one for the C. Finally, the training and proficiency costs for shipboard operation are going to be less for the B.

So, it depends on the circumstances and what you count as "cost"; (but then isn't that always the case)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom