Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

New Carriers

Karma said:
For CVF, I would agree, but it's not intended to be a command platform! That particular bit of intellectual fraud is widely recognised as a method to get the platforms, and sort out making them capable as command platforms later. Farcical in my opinion and it'll just lead to the capability costing more in the longer term.

But this is standard for all politically controlled funding, no one ever starts of with the full price, the extras get added later, look at almost any project and you will find a key part of the final cost was ommitted during the initial approval phase, the olympics are a classic with all sorts of things like security, inflation and so on left out of the estimates until it was too late to pull out.
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
stumpy said:
MM, as usual a great post, but what do the following mean:

N2
N6
J2
J6

I totally agree that the CVF will be a joint platform, therefore will the RAF and Army provide some of the funding?? Afterall, the RN provides JHC with lots of helicopters! ;)

Staff designators. 2 is intel and 6 is C4I AIUI currently. I'm surpirsed that there isn't an N2 branch. I did a tour down the North London hole on Ex Purple Helmet (or somesuch) many years ago now and I'm sure there was an N2 cell down there. That is of course far removed from deployed N2 staff such as you'd get in a US CVBG mind.
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
Karma,

I stand corrected re N2, TVM. :oops: I know the RN have now re-established the branch but had been led to believe that this was a first.

Karma said:
N2 and N6 are areas where Fleet have barely scratched the surface.

For CVF, I would agree, but it's not intended to be a command platform! That particular bit of intellectual fraud is widely recognised as a method to get the platforms, and sort out making them capable as command platforms later. Farcical in my opinion and it'll just lead to the capability costing more in the longer term.

Whether it's a command platform or not, your air wing will need to receive the ATO, ACO and numerous other documents from the CAOC. Likewise, if we're to fully exploit the capabilities of the F-35 (especially its ISTAR systems), CVF will need high bandwidth J6 systems with which to exchange J2 data such as elctronic orbat updates.

Regards,
MM
 

Karma

War Hero
Maxi_77 said:
But this is standard for all politically controlled funding, no one ever starts of with the full price, the extras get added later, look at almost any project and you will find a key part of the final cost was ommitted during the initial approval phase, the olympics are a classic with all sorts of things like security, inflation and so on left out of the estimates until it was too late to pull out.

Indeed, but when it's something as fundamental to ship design as an extra couple of hundred people, adding significant levels of IT to the existing infrastructure, upping the bandwidth from 'kin loads (as MM points out above) to can the constellation support that? etc etc. the changes that'll be needed are not trivial.

Every time someone points out that there additional delay once the ships are in Fleet Time to fit the additional kit, if there is space for it, the standard answer comes out. A lot of people recognise that from a command perspective it may never be fit for purpose, notwithstanding the fact that C2 and aviation don't really go well together in the first place.

From the whole force perspective the T45s have got the same issue, so whilst we have C2 capable T22s at the moment, we won't really have any alternatives. Mind you, at least they're not putting obsolete comms and IT into the CVF yet, there might have been some learning from the T45 and Astute!
 

Karma

War Hero
Magic_Mushroom said:
Whether it's a command platform or not, your air wing will need to receive the ATO, ACO and numerous other documents from the CAOC. Likewise, if we're to fully exploit the capabilities of the F-35 (especially its ISTAR systems), CVF will need high bandwidth J6 systems with which to exchange J2 data such as elctronic orbat updates.

Indeed. Personally I'm not convinced that the IER as it stood when I last saw it is supportable at present, that's even before the staff requirement is added. There are ways round it but it looked like a bit of a mexican standoff. One of the challenges there is funding; few projects factor in comms costs and expect someone else to deal with the problem. We're probably talking about tens of millions pa that nobody will have budgeted for.
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Hopefully the ship won't be reduced to COD/HDS-ing a hardcopy ATO as the USN had to do in GW1!

There are two issues here -

1. Force command (as in 1* MCC type)
2. The intel/ISTAR functions to properly support the CAG/TAG

As far as I can see, they both need high bandwidth between ship and other assets and segregated systems on the ship. The critical points would appear to be getting the IER on/off the ship (which should be helped by the 2 island arrangement) and distributing it within the ship. Neither should be too difficult, particularly if adequate provision for dark fibre is made in the ICS. As Karma points out though, if you need to bring 200 staff bodies over and above the planned SoC, then it will get tricky. I've always thought they were a bit light on accommodation provision and that will be tricky to fix.
 

Magic_Mushroom

War Hero
letthecatoutofthebag said:
Cancellation of CVF would be the clearest indication that SDR is dead and burried. As I mentioned, Brown is not keen on another defence review; without CVF he would have grave difficulty in avoiding a review. However, above, they will be built in his backyard...

Don't get me wrong, I think CVF will be built. But I think the bold SDR statements are now a bit of a joke.

letthecatoutofthebag said:
SKASaC7 has many advantages over E-2C particularly in a C4ISTAR role but the Hawkeye has greater endurance and ceiling. Each airframe and radar has its own advatages and disadvatges - it would be nice to have the option.

Agreed. In terms of ceiling and endurance the E-2 is obviously better but the Hawkeye's current sensor is dreadful and the SKASaC MMI is better than even the E-2D. As you say, it would be nice, but imho not essential, to be able to embark E-2D.

Regards,
MM
 

seafarer1939

War Hero
I know nothing about carriers although I served on the Vic for 2 years in the early 60,s as a seaman gunner,the flight deck was a strange area to me.but;
why do we need arrester wires and catapults if we are buyiny the new Lockhead vertical fighter?I have a son we is head electronic engineer with our latest fighters and we are buying them in time as it is supposedly a done deal.
As said if these are vertical why wires and catapult?
 

stumpy

War Hero
Because the Joint Strike Fighter comes in different versions, and indeed currently we are going for the B version which is not vertical but a short take off and vertical landing. But there are problems as the USN conventional carrier aircraft has a greater range, a larger payload and folding wings many consider it a better aircraft. Also if we had "cats and traps" (like the French version of the carrier will have) then we could operate otehr larger aircraft, most importantly it would allow for air to air refuelling.

What is driving this debate is the the JSF B is too heavy to land vertically while carrying weapons, therefore will carry out a "Rolling Vertical Landing" which is a cross between landing vertically and normally, so it will land "slowly" and therefore not need arrestor wires. This can be dangerous, because if the aircraft brakes fail then it will trundle along and smash into another aircraft...

The one big advantage of the B version is that it can launch and land aircraft more quickly, which is just as good if it can't refuel them in the air!
 
If you look at the massive steps forward in technology in the last 10 - 15 years in the '6' environment and then extrapolate this into the next 10 years or so (CVF in service date) I think we can probably bank on bandwidth not being too much of a problem. Although we are currently restricted on bandwidth the issue is improving and is likely to continue to improve.

One thing that people may be missing is with the the advent of the UAV's and their associated use, in fact this appears to be something the Navy is missing all together - albeit trials have been done on them. Where does the future of the CVF lie if we are capable of removing the Pink Fleshy things from aircraft and are able to launch UAV capable of providing 90% of the service currently supplied by ASAC et al - I do acknowledge that the missing 10% is important.

As an aside, whilst chatting to some of our light blue collegues the other day they acknowledged that the RN getting CVF was seen as a master stroke for our service by them as it increases their chances of getting the aircraft to fly off them.
 

stumpy

War Hero
Gonetothedarkside said:
If you look at the massive steps forward in technology in the last 10 - 15 years in the '6' environment and then extrapolate this into the next 10 years or so (CVF in service date) I think we can probably bank on bandwidth not being too much of a problem. Although we are currently restricted on bandwidth the issue is improving and is likely to continue to improve.

One thing that people may be missing is with the the advent of the UAV's and their associated use, in fact this appears to be something the Navy is missing all together - albeit trials have been done on them. Where does the future of the CVF lie if we are capable of removing the Pink Fleshy things from aircraft and are able to launch UAV capable of providing 90% of the service currently supplied by ASAC et al - I do acknowledge that the missing 10% is important.

As an aside, whilst chatting to some of our light blue collegues the other day they acknowledged that the RN getting CVF was seen as a master stroke for our service by them as it increases their chances of getting the aircraft to fly off them.

I think that the CVF is vital for Britain to operate UAVs. People think that these aircraft will be amazing, and they will, but people forget that if UAVs are going to carry a few missiles or bombs then they will still need to do the following:

Refuel
Rearm
Be serviced

They will also be roughly the same size as current aircraft.

For these things they will still need the CVF, where do people think that they will fly from?? If anything then they should guarantee the need for CVFs.
 

stumpy

War Hero
That is ifne if all you want are a handful of UAVs but if you want lots of sorties to drop lots of bombs on the enemy then you will need a ship that can carry, and maintain, lots of UAVs.
 

stumpy

War Hero
letthecatoutofthebag said:
stumpy said:
That is ifne if all you want are a handful of UAVs but if you want lots of sorties to drop lots of bombs on the enemy then you will need a ship that can carry, and maintain, lots of UAVs.

I don't think many (me included) take BAE's concept very seriously. The first thing I can see wrong with it is how on earth do you get it alongside with those two great back overhanging flight decks?

Ah, it is all part of their plan as you then pay them a fortune for specially re-designed docks!
 

Seaweed

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Those 200 staff bods and all their IT - why do we want them to be afloat, in cramped accommodation (both living and working), in a future where there is constant communication with head office?

I mentioned UAVs on this or an associated thread a while back. The same consideration applies to them as to manned vehicles, the desirability of a launch platform not requiring the cooperation of another country. Clearly they need their whack of maintainers, armourers etc - only the aircrew disappear which is HIGHLY desirable because of the POLITICAL consequences of their capture & being held to ransom. Not much fun for them, either. I would imagine the UAV once launched would be controlled from shore, somewhere else.
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Once they worked out it was a non-runner for aircraft, they (BAE) were trying to market that as some sort of RAS system, able to transfer 20 foot boxes betwen ships in sea state lumpy some years ago. Oh how we laughed......
 

stumpy

War Hero
Seaweed said:
Those 200 staff bods and all their IT - why do we want them to be afloat, in cramped accommodation (both living and working), in a future where there is constant communication with head office?

I mentioned UAVs on this or an associated thread a while back. The same consideration applies to them as to manned vehicles, the desirability of a launch platform not requiring the cooperation of another country. Clearly they need their whack of maintainers, armourers etc - only the aircrew disappear which is HIGHLY desirable because of the POLITICAL consequences of their capture & being held to ransom. Not much fun for them, either. I would imagine the UAV once launched would be controlled from shore, somewhere else.

Not having the aircrew onboard will make some of the ship's company happy as well!!

In reality I still expect the future (and they are a way off) to be controlled from the ship, as you are minimising the communications distance, the more links the more danger of things going wrong.
 

Karma

War Hero
stumpy said:
In reality I still expect the future (and they are a way off) to be controlled from the ship, as you are minimising the communications distance, the more links the more danger of things going wrong.

Personally I see it as the other way round, the platform just becomes storge and maintenance space and the missions are operated from elsewhere, like Las Vegas for example ;) Not sure what the RAF Sqn number is that's based over there, but it's now established on a permanent basis.

Flying the aircraft from a fixed location somewhere is much less technically risky than flying them from the ship. More comms redundancy is available for a start plus your missions are operated from well out of harms way, it reduces your logistic footprint and it reduces the need for all the mission planning to be supported onboard, which is a hugely comms intensive activity nowadays what with huge data requirements and a desire for 24/7 video-conferencing.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Life on aircraft carriers and suitability assessment Joining Up - Royal Navy Recruiting 3
MoD_RSS Spot check crackdown on waste carriers in Broxbourne MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Press release: Spot-checks on Hertfordshire waste-carriers MoD News 0
soleil Bristol Live: "Why One Of The World's Biggest Aircraft Carriers - HMS Prince Of Wales - Is Linked To Bristol" The Fleet 0
MoD_RSS News story: New ship to support the aircraft carriers arrives in UK MoD News 15
MoD_RSS News story: New head of alliance delivering nation’s Carriers amongst appointments welcomed... MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: New £48m contract for workboat fleet will support UK carriers and UK jobs,... MoD News 7
MoD_RSS News story: Shoes to seamines - 20,000 items recovered preparing for carriers’ new home MoD News 2
janner Carriers 1960's style. The Fleet Air Arm 0
D The Carriers Current Affairs 40
MoD_RSS News story: Crowsnest helicopter surveillance deal to protect carriers sustains 200... MoD News 1
MoD_RSS News story: New lights will guide the way for Queen Elizabeth Class carriers MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: Power facilities for new aircraft carriers near completion MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: Dredging project paves way for new QEC Carriers to make their home in Portsmouth MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: Work to prepare for aircraft carriers well underway in Portsmouth MoD News 1
MoD_RSS News story: New surveillance system for future Royal Navy aircraft carriers revealed MoD News 0
BE19Pilot Essex-class 27C carriers The Fleet Air Arm 0
A Do R.A.F pilots get to land and operate from Aircraft Carriers? or is it only F.A.A? The Fleet Air Arm 23
fishhead Side paddle-Wheel Carriers History 2
soleil Western M. News: "Exhibition Shows Life On Board New Aircraft Carriers At Yeovilton" The Fleet Air Arm 1
P Seaplanes on carriers History 2
soleil BBC 1 - The One Show - Wed, 18th Sep 2013 - Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers The Fleet 8
scouse Aircraft Carriers The Fleet Air Arm 198
trelawney126 Liverpool gets ready to welcome new Carriers The Fleet 1
soleil Herald: "Retiring: The Expert Who Parks Subs And Aircraft Carriers" Bases / Shore Est 0
scouse Navy carriers to have part time jets The Fleet Air Arm 1
MoD_RSS Pilots prepare for landing on Royal Navy's new carriers MoD News 0
soleil Telegraph: "New Aircraft Carriers 'White Elephants With Dinky Toys On Top'" The Fleet 14
scouse 9 Carriers home for Christmas The Fleet Air Arm 7
soleil Avionics Intelligence: "RN Weather Experts Prepare For New Carriers With US Navy" The Fleet 1
P Carriers win F35 RAF Battle Current Affairs 12
scouse Carriers hull on route The Fleet Air Arm 5
L My father serves on WW 2 Aircraft carriers. Service Record wanted. History 2
Hermes_R12 QE Class Aircraft Carriers - New Accommodation The Fleet 11
janner WW2 Carriers The Fleet Air Arm 3
soleil Pompey News: "Navy Boss On Why Britain Needs Its Carriers Back" The Fleet 3
trelawney126 BBC Take On UK Carriers Current Affairs 7
soleil BBC News Magazine: "Does Anybody Still Need Aircraft Carriers?" The Fleet 3
soleil Mirror: "£500m Jump Jets May Melt The Decks Of Aircraft Carriers" The Fleet Air Arm 6
soleil Telegraph: "We’re All At Sea Over Our New Aircraft Carriers" The Fleet 1
dhoby_bucket Just in time for the new carriers... Current Affairs 0
soleil Pompey News: "Computer Tests Prove RN Carriers Will Be Able To Fit In Pompey Harbour" Bases / Shore Est 0
frogman007 Carriers to go back to VTOL?? Current Affairs 4
soleil Pompey News: "Carriers ‘May Have No Jets Until 2025’ The Fleet Air Arm 6
trelawney126 Further delays for Carriers The Fleet Air Arm 0
P Yet another twist in the story of the Queen Elizabeth/Prince of Wales carriers Current Affairs 37
MoD_RSS Drilling begins in Portsmouth for arrival of Navy's latest carriers Current Affairs 12
soleil Mail: "RN Spends £50bn On New Fighter Jets, But They Can't Land On Carriers" The Fleet Air Arm 13
soleil Mail: "Britain Will Be Without Any Fully-Working Carriers Until 2030, MPs Warn" The Fleet 11
scouse Aircraft Carriers in the Mersey The Fleet Air Arm 1
Similar threads


















































Latest Threads

Top