Wow, three please. Should get the Tides. Would make a lot of sense. We can then try to steal more RN personnel already trained up to operate the ships.
To easy though, we should get korea to build them, then we triple hull them here (joke)
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
To easy though, we should get korea to build them, then we triple hull them here (joke)
Would make sense for Australia to have 3 x tides.
Found more pics :
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-tide-class-fleet-tanker-now-afloat/
The ASC proposal going back years (maybe as much as a decade but I'm not sure) was for two Korean and one Australian built Aegirs. The idea was while the first two were under construction in SK blocks for the third would begin fabrication locally, hopefully meaning it could be delivered not too long after the second entered service.
It was originally planned to fill two blindingly obvious needs, new tankers for the RAN and something to keep local shipbuilding ticking over until the OCV and LCH(R) came on line. Unfortunately once Rudd was knifed Gillard in true left wing fashion gutted defence and failed to order any of the many ships flagged in the White Paper.
Sad thing is we are now approaching our third WP in less than a decade and (if the polls are to be believed) chances are it too will not be worth the paper its written on with it being replaced by another iteration before a single project it outlines is kicked off.
It was originally planned to fill two blindingly obvious needs, new tankers for the RAN and something to keep local shipbuilding ticking over until the OCV and LCH(R) came on line. Unfortunately once Rudd was knifed Gillard in true left wing fashion gutted defence and failed to order any of the many ships flagged in the White Paper.
Sad thing is we are now approaching our third WP in less than a decade and (if the polls are to be believed) chances are it too will not be worth the paper its written on with it being replaced by another iteration before a single project it outlines is kicked off.
So the first 6 Merlin Mk3s arrived at Culdrose a few weeks ago, presumably these will be part of the 7 strong interim HC3 package to cover the gap left by Sea King leaving service early next year and the induction of the full fat naval Merlin HC4 later in 2017.
Royal Navy begins transferring ex-RAF Merlins to Yeovilton - IHS Jane's 360
Anyway, interesting part is the numbers. Plan is for 20 HC4s as part of the forward fleet with 5 in maintenance at any time. Two squadrons will fly 10 Merlins each nominally but that must fluctuate because the latter numbers don't work out.
845 NAS will operate 3 deployable flights of 4 Merlins while 846 NAS will operate the OCU flight, a maritime counter terrorism flight and an extra deployable flight in support of 845.
Meaning a deployable capability of 16 HC4 all in.
Oh, and HMS Talent has reportedly struck a piece of floating ice during surfacing last year. Read into that what you will.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
Royal Navy begins transferring ex-RAF Merlins to Yeovilton - IHS Jane's 360
Anyway, interesting part is the numbers. Plan is for 20 HC4s as part of the forward fleet with 5 in maintenance at any time. Two squadrons will fly 10 Merlins each nominally but that must fluctuate because the latter numbers don't work out.
845 NAS will operate 3 deployable flights of 4 Merlins while 846 NAS will operate the OCU flight, a maritime counter terrorism flight and an extra deployable flight in support of 845.
Meaning a deployable capability of 16 HC4 all in.
Oh, and HMS Talent has reportedly struck a piece of floating ice during surfacing last year. Read into that what you will.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tml?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
There's always time, just depends how much money/delays you want to deal with.
Personally, I don't think there's a better option on the table next to what we're going to get in terms of cost, capability, delivery and availability.
Personally, I don't think there's a better option on the table next to what we're going to get in terms of cost, capability, delivery and availability.
Why switch to the C when the b better fits the RNs requirements. While the C has a longer range and greater internal weapons capacity the B will generate a far greater sortie rate than the C could ever hope to achieve. Its a trade off, the large USN air groups can generate the required sorties through raw numbers and multiple catapults, while the smaller RN carriers with their smaller groups would never be able to achieve the same sortie rates with the C but through accepting the shorter range of the B these smaller ships can, over shorter ranges, be very effective. It would ne nice to have the best of bother but the QECs can't support that.
B is the best of all worlds for the budget available - we get two carriers fitted out and available very soon as opposed to one carrier fitted out and the other mothballed, with flying taking place a couple of years earlier than if we'd gone EMALS.
The time to make that decision should have been when steel was cut I suspect. Now or any time after the blocks were built is too late.
The time to make that decision should have been when steel was cut I suspect. Now or any time after the blocks were built is too late.
Think about the circumstances of the UK.
Consider the lifetime cost, not of an individual aircraft, or a squadron, but of a fleet devoted to naval aviation, of a subtype different from those based on land - & with no operational crossover. Whatever naval aircraft you have are all that you can ever put on your carriers. The land-based variant is purely land-based. Even if you buy a carrier variant for land-based operations, it'd still not be easily deployable at sea, because the pilots aren't carrier trained.
You either need to buy more carrier aircraft than you want to put to sea most of the time, buy the carrier variant for everyone & have land-based pilots carrier-trained & rotating through refreshers regularly (both expensive), or accept that your carriers will always be short of aircraft, & desperately short of them in some circumstances.
Add in the costs of catapults, rebuilding ships that are pretty well built, & operating & maintenance costs for catapults.
For forces the size of the RN & RAF, are you sure B is more expensive?
Consider the lifetime cost, not of an individual aircraft, or a squadron, but of a fleet devoted to naval aviation, of a subtype different from those based on land - & with no operational crossover. Whatever naval aircraft you have are all that you can ever put on your carriers. The land-based variant is purely land-based. Even if you buy a carrier variant for land-based operations, it'd still not be easily deployable at sea, because the pilots aren't carrier trained.
You either need to buy more carrier aircraft than you want to put to sea most of the time, buy the carrier variant for everyone & have land-based pilots carrier-trained & rotating through refreshers regularly (both expensive), or accept that your carriers will always be short of aircraft, & desperately short of them in some circumstances.
Add in the costs of catapults, rebuilding ships that are pretty well built, & operating & maintenance costs for catapults.
For forces the size of the RN & RAF, are you sure B is more expensive?
Last edited:
And the arrestor gear too.
Shorter legs* = AAR.
Less payload = the RAF is doing away with 2000lb'ers anyway so what does it matter if the B can't carry a bomb which will be leaving inventory?
The only weapon we'll have of any sort of size (Storm Shadow) can only be carried on the inboard stations on any of the variants anyway.
*Subjective term, ~470nm as a combat radius ain't exactly short. Larger radius by a not insignificant margin compared to a Hornet for example
Shorter legs* = AAR.
Less payload = the RAF is doing away with 2000lb'ers anyway so what does it matter if the B can't carry a bomb which will be leaving inventory?
The only weapon we'll have of any sort of size (Storm Shadow) can only be carried on the inboard stations on any of the variants anyway.
*Subjective term, ~470nm as a combat radius ain't exactly short. Larger radius by a not insignificant margin compared to a Hornet for example
Depends under what circumstances you compare them - if you put them both at 30K feet heading for a target 300 nm inside enemy territory, then I'm sure I'd fancy the C, but if I had to buy carriers, put them in the water and so forth, suddenly the B looks more attractive.
Does the C have a lower life time cost if you include the cost and maintenance of AARG/EMALS plus carqual for instance? Carrier quals on the B are done in a very short period of time, and don't need a lot of refresher, on the C, they need constant practice.
If we could afford C plus E2 and COD aircraft, yep, no brainer, buy C. We can't. No brainer.
B...
In related RN news...
BAE Systems to retain Govan and Scotstoun shipyards with £100m investment - BBC News
Good news for the area & for people like me !
BAE Systems to retain Govan and Scotstoun shipyards with £100m investment - BBC News
Good news for the area & for people like me !
I'm surprised they're keeping both sites as there seemed to be a fair impetus towards a single site for this "frigate factory" they were on about. Still, good news, although I'm sure the SNP will put their own spin on it.
kev 99
Member
Yes I quite agree, not sure if this is really the ideal solution but then I'm not really in possession of all the facts, the SNP actually sound remarkably reserved about taking credit for it.
ASAC/Crows Nest
A decision! And the winner is :
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-future-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-revealed
Looks like the old kit pulled through into HM2.
A decision! And the winner is :
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-future-royal-navy-aircraft-carriers-revealed
Looks like the old kit pulled through into HM2.
...From the article -
"...In a joint statement, Glasgow SNP MPs Chris Stephens and Carol Monaghan said: "This decision by BAE is a testament to the abilities of the highly skilled workforces and it is important that we recognise the world-leading expertise that we have here on the Clyde.
"We look forward to working closely with BAE in the future."....."
fftopicTHIS from the people who want / wanted to shut down a nuclear navy base / convert it to conventional submarines & surface ships, want a Scottish Navy & will affect 1/4 million people in the process, by either making them unemployed by these actions, or thru affecting the services that support the naval base & the communities that surround it.
As a Scotsman, they now have 4 years to prove to me that they can adapt their policies for the Scottish people or (more likely IMHO), spend 4 years tearing the country to shreds....
Rant over / lets move away from the politics...
GOOD News about Crowsnest !
AFAIK it's still basically going to be the same mechanically scanned arrays, but
The transition from ASaC Mk7 to HM2 doesn't leave any gaps which is good considering at one point it was going to be a 2016-2020 gap at the earliest.
Thales bags selection for RN Crowsnest system - 5/22/2015 - Flight Global
The transition from ASaC Mk7 to HM2 doesn't leave any gaps which is good considering at one point it was going to be a 2016-2020 gap at the earliest.
Yep, I thought L-M made a significant error, when it decided to move away from a common radar with F-35, for this project. I thought it's only chance to usurp an updated version of the existing capability on a new airframe, was to offer significant commonality with an in-service (or at least soon to be...) system.