Super Nimrod
New Member
So they are going to buy a crane to build them. I understood that originally they were trying to avoid having to do so (I have family in Rosyth). It would be a sensible investment regardless
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
and i mite overdue as this kind of thing should have been done in the 1960s for the CVA
Well said harryriedl!
What a pity the planned fleet of at least three of the original Queen Elizabeth (CVA-01) class carriers was not built. It remains one of the great 'what ifs?'!
Great info on CVA-01 and RN carrier policy can be found on:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
Tas
...About time !!
I'd heard a rumour a few years ago (2002 - 2004), that while looking for suitable sites for the assembly of the mega blocks around the UK, they considered Harland & Wolf in Belfast & a drydock that BAE has the lease on, on the lower banks of the River Clyde.
The upshot was that Harland's was a no go, due the proposed development of the site & that the costs of bringing the drydock near Greenock up to spec, before using it, were a bit hefty, due to having to rip down the cranes that it already has. (this was the same drydock that the QE2 used for her final fit out in the 1960s', so they know it was long enough, but the upward curve of the hull, to accommodate the flight deck meant the cranes would have to be removed).
Also, as the dock was leased (from the Clyde Port Authority), they'd have to agree to put it back to it's original standard.
Events have since overtaken the whole process now. The consortium plumped for Rosyth, as there was no need to put the facilities back to the original state, as new cranes will enhance the facilities. Also BAE leased the drydock to AMEC, who are now mid way through the build of the floating dock assembly to house the Astute submarines during their maintenance periods.
In the meantime, the local council in the area around the drydock have started a regeneration programme, which has led to a new housing estate being built about 250 metres from the facilities.
I have a feeling that that was one of the main reasons they plumped for Rosyth !
Systems Adict
I'd heard a rumour a few years ago (2002 - 2004), that while looking for suitable sites for the assembly of the mega blocks around the UK, they considered Harland & Wolf in Belfast & a drydock that BAE has the lease on, on the lower banks of the River Clyde.
The upshot was that Harland's was a no go, due the proposed development of the site & that the costs of bringing the drydock near Greenock up to spec, before using it, were a bit hefty, due to having to rip down the cranes that it already has. (this was the same drydock that the QE2 used for her final fit out in the 1960s', so they know it was long enough, but the upward curve of the hull, to accommodate the flight deck meant the cranes would have to be removed).
Also, as the dock was leased (from the Clyde Port Authority), they'd have to agree to put it back to it's original standard.
Events have since overtaken the whole process now. The consortium plumped for Rosyth, as there was no need to put the facilities back to the original state, as new cranes will enhance the facilities. Also BAE leased the drydock to AMEC, who are now mid way through the build of the floating dock assembly to house the Astute submarines during their maintenance periods.
In the meantime, the local council in the area around the drydock have started a regeneration programme, which has led to a new housing estate being built about 250 metres from the facilities.
I have a feeling that that was one of the main reasons they plumped for Rosyth !
Systems Adict
im not wild about the design of the CVA its the Alaskan highway which i have the largest trouble with and the size of the Island. but they were allot better than the Invisiables.Well said harryriedl!
What a pity the planned fleet of at least three of the original Queen Elizabeth (CVA-01) class carriers was not built. It remains one of the great 'what ifs?'!
Great info on CVA-01 and RN carrier policy can be found on:
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cva01.htm
Tas
It seems HMS Illustrious might miss the exercises in Oman..
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=349020&story_id=10700598
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=349020&story_id=10700598
Hi this is my first post here i like to keep up to date with the navy as most of my relatives have served in it at one point, and i think its a shame what successive governments have done to the navy.
My question is about the new carriers planned. Where are the aircraft for them going to come from? I know they will ever operate the F-35b or c but the original order of around 70 units for the navy has been cancelled long ago, and the number of RAF units has been cut, I find it worrying that we are building 60,000ton carriers which according to navy matters will only have available 12 F-35b/c, the navy imo needs its own aircraft or the joint force needs enough aircraft for the navy and raf but this seems unlikely. I have copied below the expect carrier air group in standard operations.
9 - 12 x Harrier GR.9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAVs
6 x Merlin HM helicopters
Total = 22 - 25
My question is about the new carriers planned. Where are the aircraft for them going to come from? I know they will ever operate the F-35b or c but the original order of around 70 units for the navy has been cancelled long ago, and the number of RAF units has been cut, I find it worrying that we are building 60,000ton carriers which according to navy matters will only have available 12 F-35b/c, the navy imo needs its own aircraft or the joint force needs enough aircraft for the navy and raf but this seems unlikely. I have copied below the expect carrier air group in standard operations.
9 - 12 x Harrier GR.9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAVs
6 x Merlin HM helicopters
Total = 22 - 25
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Systems Addict or Swerve will be able to answer this better than I, but i'll have a crack.
AFAIK the whole objective of the CVF was to project and sustain a multi squadron air group, i.e. 28~36 F-35B's and ~6 AEW/ASW helo's (perhaps a V-22 AEW). Haveing only 9~12 platforms drastically reduces your toal sortie rates, your package generation rates and your combat effectiveness. As I understand it, thats the whole reason the RN is moveing away from pocket carriers, a sub squadron air group is pretty much ineffecive as a tool of power projection, simply because it can not effectively put an organic strike package together and provide fleet air defence at the same time.
Therefore even though the order may have not been put through yet, and the RN is only talking about sub squadron air groups now, dosent mean when your actually going to get your shinny new 60 000t super-carrier (can i call it that?) the money wont be there for the full number of F-35B's. After all, why would you spend all that cash building a ship with so much potential and only give it half an CAG? I suspect that the RN is just trying to make sure they get the things built, and by keeping the initial aircraft purchase low they keep the cost down, which means less ammo for lefty pollies to spend the money on something else. When that sucker is operational i'll bet they've got the full complement on board. If not then whats the point in building it?
We're supposed to be getting 138-150 F-35B eventually for the joint force, which should be enough for full complements for two carriers, training, spares, & some left over for the crabs
. I'm not as well-informed on this as I'd like to be, but I think that officially, we should have a single permanent carrier air group*, so that if both carriers are at sea in peacetime they might only have half a group each, or one might be serving as an LPH. Bloody waste, if you ask me. We may end up like now, with the carriers dependent on the RAF not wanting the aircraft. Back to the 1930s . . . BTW, I suspect the French will be very short of Rafale M for their carriers. IIRC, they plan to buy about 60, which isn't enough to fill both carriers.
*To be topped up from the joint force if needed, e.g. for a war.
Yeah I suppose if they can get them built we can order extra aircraft at some point in the future, I have heard that some people from America involved in the F-35 have said the British order has been reduced to 80 in total but obviously that might not be true. The Navy imo should have its own aircraft and thus be able to choose if it wants the B or C version and can then deploy its own aircraft without having to depend on the RAF.
We are talking about a defense project, moreover, a British defense project, so I would guess anything is possible. Does even the USN enough aircraft to fill up the carriers up the maximum practical air wing strength?
As a foreigner I have long supposed that CV(F) is a cunning plan by Labour to decapitate Royal Navy. By clinging on to CV (F) rest of the RN capability can be effectively stripped. The British Army is in the process of being destroyed, and after RN and British Army it can be well questioned what to do with the RAF having +200 Eurofighters...
They will be cunningly rebuilt into carrier capable aircraft and the CVF will become a proper carrier with a bloody catapult.
In the CVF office in Glasgow they have drawings of the CVF with catapults launching the aircraft, when I asked about this I was told it's the French version and the one they wanted to build, the French are getting the better more capable version of this design I believe.
I don't see how anyone in the USA would know what our total order is going to be, when the British government hasn't even decided yet. IIRC we've only ordered two for testing so far.
debatable as the F35 is the more capable plane of cores everybody like CTOLThey will be cunningly rebuilt into carrier capable aircraft and the CVF will become a proper carrier with a bloody catapult.
In the CVF office in Glasgow they have drawings of the CVF with catapults launching the aircraft, when I asked about this I was told it's the French version and the one they wanted to build, the French are getting the better more capable version of this design I believe.
yeah it said on navymatters that some American insiders where saying the British provisional order was being reduced to 80 I don't know if its true its probably just a rumor.
I think they mean the french cvf will have more kit on it like better command and control center cats and traps and have a better weapon system. If are new carrier had proper cats and traps we could then operate the better C version of the F-35
That is the big worry to me. When WW2 began the RN lacked the capacity to operate its carriers effectively. The navy had only just regained control of the FAA from the RAF. Modern carrier capable aircraft were virtually non existent and even the obsolete types that were available were in short supply. The most modern carrier, Ark Royal, never operated its maximum airgroup and as the war progressed the size of its airgroup actually shrank. When the first of the Illustrious class joined in 1940 they operated only a handful of aircraft and it was not until US aircraft became available later in the war that they were able to operate with maximum effectiveness. The aircraft carried by Illustrious shown below are typical:We may end up like now, with the carriers dependent on the RAF not wanting the aircraft. Back to the 1930s . . .
8/40 5 Fulmars and 8 Swordfish
5/42 6 Martlets and 21 Swordfish
9/43 20 Martlests, 10 Seafires and 12 Barracudas
5/44 28 Corsairs and 24 Barracudas
1/45 36 Corsairs and 21 Avengers
Ref: Warships of WWII, Lenton and Colledge, Ian Allan, London, 1964
I would hate to see the RN forced to put the new CVFs into operational service carrying airgroups that even 'pocket carriers' could accommodate.
Having committed so much to the carrier acquisition it seems lunacy to me to not invest in at least two reasonably sized and navy manned airgroups, backed by RAF squadrons to enable surges for operational deployments.
e.g.
24 x Harrier GR.9 or F-35B STOVL Joint Strike Fighters;
4 x Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control
aircraft/helicopters/UAVs
6 x Merlin helicopters
Plus 12 RAF Harrier GR.9 or F-35Bs when needed for operational deployments.
Total: 34 RN plus 12 RAF = 46
Tas
No one would like to see a proper Navy air group on the CVF's more than me. However other than money, many serious problems remain.
At the moment the Royal Navy has trouble standing up two nine-plane GR.9 squadrons for lack of pilot attack instructors. (hence the consolidated Naval Strike Wing) It is highly unlikely that this situation will change any time soon.
Initially the CVF's will operate with GR.9's.. so the same problems of aircraft availability experienced now with the Invincible's will be carried over to the CVF's.
According to F35 delivery schedules quoted on Beedall's by 2018 the Royal Navy should have somewhere between 60 - 80 F35B's. (The same number as they currently have GR.9's) So for the first couple of years at least the CVF's will defenitely not have air groups up to the strength we would like to see.
The government would have to put up some serious money to change all this in the 2020's..
At the moment the Royal Navy has trouble standing up two nine-plane GR.9 squadrons for lack of pilot attack instructors. (hence the consolidated Naval Strike Wing) It is highly unlikely that this situation will change any time soon.
Initially the CVF's will operate with GR.9's.. so the same problems of aircraft availability experienced now with the Invincible's will be carried over to the CVF's.
According to F35 delivery schedules quoted on Beedall's by 2018 the Royal Navy should have somewhere between 60 - 80 F35B's. (The same number as they currently have GR.9's) So for the first couple of years at least the CVF's will defenitely not have air groups up to the strength we would like to see.
The government would have to put up some serious money to change all this in the 2020's..