I was thinking more Ocean/Mistral/Invincible sized, maybe 8 F35b (stretch 12) and 4-8 helicopters. If you are just replacing say an F35a buy the marginal cost could be quite modest.
HMS Queen Elizabeth.. disaster carrier programme?
- Thread starter 153jam
- Start date
kev 99
Member
Something the size of Hyuga could be doable, for very limited actions you could probably squeeze 8 into it, but I doubt it's ability to carry much in the way of fuel and munitions.
But for 8 plus helicopters I think we're talking something more Invincible sized.
We did hit another very bad recession in 1990-95 which would not have helped the finances. One of the advantages of the Harrier was it didn't need a bigger ship. Also 3 x 20,000t, is more flexible than 2 x 30,000t, certainly in the ASW role, which was after all their primary role.
The RN did do a lot after the Falklands and pretty much addressed all the issues...AEW, radar/BVR missile armed FA2 and more airframes, the mistake it made was not basing this on the common AV8B.
Very little difference.
Length 197 vs 210 metres
Beam 33 vs 36 metres
Full load 19000 vs 22000 tons
Re 1805's question - as said, you could build a pretty cheap ship. Imagine a version of Juan Carlos 1 with no dock, & increased bunkerage, muntions stores etc. in the vehicle deck, as a step up from a quick & dirty freighter conversion (MAC, anyone?). The air group for a dedicated carrier JC1 wouldn't come cheap, though.
Its the old steel is cheap and air is free adage. A pair of larger ships built as carriers (still operating the same aircraft as the Invincibles but more of them) without Sea Dart would have probably have cost no more than an Invincible while the two remaining ships would have been able to back up the larger ships as required but also have filled the Commando Carrier role removing the need for Ocean. The sale of Invincible to Australia would have provided cash to go towards the construction of the first of the larger ships. All very what if I know but in hind site.....
Australia budgeted A$3bn for a pair of modified JC1s so that is your starting point. If your airforce is already getting F-35As then you would have a lot of the F-35 overheads covered off already (training logistics etc) and would only be talking about the cost of the actual B model aircraft.
Well maybe not even that, if you are talking about a country that is in the market for say 100 F35a originally all budgeted and in the plans and then decided to change that to 80 a and 20 b the real cost is the differential between the a & b on 20 aircraft and the extra maintenance/operating costs of the two types over just one. Plus the cost of the flat top they might be buying anyway.
You could include half a dozen countries that could afford this sort of model.
True, but it is a figure I know so I thought I'd use that rather than guess
The Canberras also have a pretty comprehensive outfit interms of combat and command systems that may not be needed by a carrier so there is a further saving.
To be honest Navantia could probably do a clean sheet design that is better suited to operating the required number of aircraft and build it for a lower cost than adapting the JC1.
kev 99
Member
Yes I know but I reckon that little difference is probably good enough to crowbar another 2 aircraft parked on the flight deck and one in the hanger.
I know but do you think politicians will ever listen? Ahhhgg that's big and shiny , it must be unaffordable, we'll just buy some more of those nice, slightly cheaper land based aircraft, supporting tankers, upgrade major bases near our population centres and invest in a number of bare bones bases nearer to where the action will be if something happens at greater cost.......:tomato
You're right there, it takes someone to do it....and that is only likely to happen if you see the Spanish/Italians operating F35 on smallish platforms. The likely candidate is South Korea, (I am sure Japan would love to...but probably to much trouble for them)..can you imagine how cheap they can knock out a 30,000t multirole..
How knows even the likes of Brazil might realise how ridiculous CATOBAR is for their requirement and see sense.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agreed, it would be more cost effective to build at Navantia's yard. Canada has the same problem, politicians using defense procurement as an economic bribe to gain political advantage. With no experienced naval shipyards and a requirement for a Cdn design we will pay through the nose for a sub-standard vessel. Dividing up the cost difference between a domestic and foreign build and simply giving this difference directly to the region would be a better way to obtain political advantage plus Canada would get better ships....to bad it will never happen.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Japan's trouble with a JC type carrier operating F-35Bs would be linked to constitutional issues and WW2 memories of their neighbours but if SK did this I think Japan might reconsider how much trouble it really would be not to do this.
I am not for one moment suggesting that another nation should get Australia to build them aJC1, rather just indicating the price that Australia paid. As to local build vs over seas built it is never as simple as basic cost alone, otherwise every shipin the world would be built in Vietnam at the moment. Remember paying someone else to build it for you means the money disappears from your economy where a local build, so long as you have the capacity will expand your economy. And never forget the benefits of growing / retaining heavy engineering skills, especially in a country like Australia that tends to have boom and bust infrastructure cycles.
This is a very good point and needs to be balanced with all "make v buy" decisions. It is also important for defence chiefs to understand the implications of the demands/constraints of national construction. In particular avoiding long breaks in construction, staggering production, fitting in with other programmes, actively designing ships that are attractive to export clients. At the end of the day long term sea power is not just about having nice ships, its a wide range of things.....political/national commitment, industrial capability, heritage, training....
The Type 26 looks very positive in this respect, and to a degree so is the CVF as the French shared some of the design costs. I remain hopeful that once in the water the CVF/F35b will become a pretty compelling proposition.
Don't forget expertise as well. Having built one of the largest shipbuilding facilities in the world Ingalls didn't have the expertise to build two medium sized cruise liners. I say Ingalls because a number of corporations have owned it through the years. The safest shipyard in the United States, Newport News, is now facing the possibility of having aircraft carrier orders delayed, something unheard of during the past fifty years. None of the other US shipyards have the capacity or expertise to build super sized aircraft carriers. Newport News faces the same possible layoffs and retraining a new staff in the future.
FirstSpear
Banned Member
Shared resource alternative
Furthermore, sharing decks between two different fighter systems (e.g. F35C, for argument's sake, and the Rafale M) would not be prohibitive. Even the USN, plans to operarte mixed F35/SH wings until they have enough of the former to replace the latter. And if no one keeps telling the French this is a hi/lo mix, no one would have to be offended
Also, while I appreciate all the talk about the Commando Carrier role, frankly both navies have spent years and serious currency developing and fielding capable ships for amphibious power projection. I still personally find the STOBAR configuration fairly compelling for the RN because of the bring back advantages.
For the most intractable bit, both countries would like occasionally to operate their ships in a purely national role. In that case, they would have to live with the tradeoff of saving ALL that money. I don't know if that means too much sucking up to your own ally to ask if you can do a joint op say to rescue your nationals off an unfriendly coast...
The furthest pie in the sky would have been to enlist other EU nations to contribute escorts and, why not, even some air assets to the CBG. Helos and some marines for a quick rescue would be the no brainers but when you see that Australia and Canada both operated standard USN issue F/A18s for decades in the land based role, you have to ask yourself why, for example, Be and NL couldn't have purchased a carrier capable fleet of fighters and designated one unit each to maintain carrier currency as their EU contributions to the CBG. Sp and It would also be naturals for this, having both operated types which could be so designated. Not just the Harriers for their CVL but also F/A18s for Spain and eventually F35s for both... Your thoughts?
As a big proponent of a real power projection capability for the EU both within the French, UK and other navies, I have done a lot of searching sources to see if a plan to share a platform was ever entertained, particularly as part of the now defunct agreement on the anniversary of the "Entente Cordiale" to share the design to build Britain's two and France's second CV. Considering the considerable monies invested in joint fleets of AEW, now Strategic Lift and some lesser talked about 'comparing of notes' on the operation of SSNs and SSBNs, I would have expected (obviously in error) a plan to buy at least one UK CV and share air wing ops with the French Navy. If each deployment included either country's CV but consistently a joint air wing, op tempo and accumulating of operational expertise would really be improved. Not to mention that both countries could spend a lot more on the air assets and accompanying escorts and just take turns 'hosting' the air wing. Yes, we're talking about an enormous amount of sharing in terms of political and strategic priority setting. But the benefits would be almost immediate. France already has a working fighter for the decks and AEW aircraft. Buying more of the latter is not hard right now as the USN is recapitalizing with IIRC 89 new build E2s. Certainly, the catapults for one CV would not be as prohibitive in the absolute (though clearly more expensive per actual catapult system).
Furthermore, sharing decks between two different fighter systems (e.g. F35C, for argument's sake, and the Rafale M) would not be prohibitive. Even the USN, plans to operarte mixed F35/SH wings until they have enough of the former to replace the latter. And if no one keeps telling the French this is a hi/lo mix, no one would have to be offended
Also, while I appreciate all the talk about the Commando Carrier role, frankly both navies have spent years and serious currency developing and fielding capable ships for amphibious power projection. I still personally find the STOBAR configuration fairly compelling for the RN because of the bring back advantages.
For the most intractable bit, both countries would like occasionally to operate their ships in a purely national role. In that case, they would have to live with the tradeoff of saving ALL that money. I don't know if that means too much sucking up to your own ally to ask if you can do a joint op say to rescue your nationals off an unfriendly coast...
The furthest pie in the sky would have been to enlist other EU nations to contribute escorts and, why not, even some air assets to the CBG. Helos and some marines for a quick rescue would be the no brainers but when you see that Australia and Canada both operated standard USN issue F/A18s for decades in the land based role, you have to ask yourself why, for example, Be and NL couldn't have purchased a carrier capable fleet of fighters and designated one unit each to maintain carrier currency as their EU contributions to the CBG. Sp and It would also be naturals for this, having both operated types which could be so designated. Not just the Harriers for their CVL but also F/A18s for Spain and eventually F35s for both... Your thoughts?
It's an interesting point about industrial sustainability and yards working on broader activity to keep viable. I think much depends on the attitude of the yards and political direction. Not quite liners but some are nearly the size of small ones; German yards have being very busy in the lux yacht market. In the UK Babcock had a couple of goes at this and did build a very fine 96m VAVA II, but lost interest and money, personally I think BAE could do with some encouragement...ideally carrot and stick.
There is probably more steel in this lot in the last 10 years than 6 x Type 45s!
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_yachts_by_length"]List of motor yachts by length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Maybe we should offer a Type 26 version as a lux yacht (I am serious).
Last edited:
t68
Well-Known Member
I remember some time ago someone turned an ex frigate into a large yacht but for the life of me can't remember which ship and by whom.