Smaller Carriers??

London

Midshipman
The current debate about the new RN carriers seems to suggest that we'll either get the full 65,000 behemoths with Joint Strike Fighters or the programme will be cancelled altogether.

I haven't heard any arguments for buying a couple of smaller carriers (30,000+ tons) with a cheaper 'off the shelf' aircraft such as the Rafale.
Surely if we cannot afford the large carriers, the RN should have a 'fall-back' position such as this.

Better to have smaller carriers than none at all.
 
I agree, although with the state of build quality in the UK these days, I think we would be better off buying in, perhaps from Germany for example.
 

Chalky

Lantern Swinger
As far as I'm aware, the design process did examine smaller carriers of varying configurations and it was determined that 65,000 tons was the bare minimum required to meet the objectives established in the SDR.
 

Brains

Lantern Swinger
What about we forget about the aircraft, which are very expensive in themselves, and build the biggest carriers we can afford?

We could let the crabs provide the JSF capability (i.e. the RN don't foot the cost of aircraft), or be a platform for allied aircraft, whilst maintaining the option to add our own if required.

Aircraft can be acquired faster than carriers, and buying an 'option' to function as a big fcuk-off carrier, even if we only plan to use it at maybe 25% capacity initially, would give us a long-term capability we would otherwise have to battle for again in the future.

Unless, of course, we're not sure we want them.
 

London

Midshipman
Brains said:
We could let the crabs provide the JSF capability (i.e. the RN don't foot the cost of aircraft), or be a platform for allied aircraft, whilst maintaining the option to add our own if required.
The cost would still come out of the same (MoD) budget though.

As we've managed quite well with 3 mini-carriers since the early 80s, I can't see why slightly larger replacements along the same lines wouldn't be sufficient.

If more more is going to be needed for the army, the danger is that the RN will lose its carrier capability entirely if it persists with the large carriers. Although the Rolls-Royce option is the best, better to have a Mondeo than nothing at all.
 

slim

War Hero
London said:
Brains said:
We could let the crabs provide the JSF capability (i.e. the RN don't foot the cost of aircraft), or be a platform for allied aircraft, whilst maintaining the option to add our own if required.
The cost would still come out of the same (MoD) budget though.

As we've managed quite well with 3 mini-carriers since the early 80s, I can't see why slightly larger replacements along the same lines wouldn't be sufficient.

If more more is going to be needed for the army, the danger is that the RN will lose its carrier capability entirely if it persists with the large carriers. Although the Rolls-Royce option is the best, better to have a Mondeo than nothing at all.
I disagree with your statement that we have managed quite well since the early 80s. Had we had a carrier like the old Ark Royal with Buccaneers, Gannets and Phantams, I believe that the Falklands conflict would have been resolved without the loss of any ships.
 

Chalky

Lantern Swinger
slim said:
I disagree with your statement that we have managed quite well since the early 80s. Had we had a carrier like the old Ark Royal with Buccaneers, Gannets and Phantams, I believe that the Falklands conflict would have been resolved without the loss of any ships.
I agree. The limitations of the 'though-deck cruiser' have become all too apparent, particularly if you want a mixed air wing of air defence and CAS aircraft, as well as helicopters to boot.

The larger air wing and the flexibility it will provide will, hopefully, return the RN to having a 'true' carrier capability and the power capabilities they provide.
 

London

Midshipman
Chalky said:
The larger air wing and the flexibility it will provide will, hopefully, return the RN to having a 'true' carrier capability and the power capabilities they provide.
But given financial restraints, this could be a couple of 35-40,000 ton carriers with 40 planes each rather than the 65,000 ton carriers currently planned.
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
Brains said:
What about we forget about the aircraft, which are very expensive in themselves, and build the biggest carriers we can afford?

We could let the crabs provide the JSF capability (i.e. the RN don't foot the cost of aircraft), or be a platform for allied aircraft, whilst maintaining the option to add our own if required.

Aircraft can be acquired faster than carriers, and buying an 'option' to function as a big fcuk-off carrier, even if we only plan to use it at maybe 25% capacity initially, would give us a long-term capability we would otherwise have to battle for again in the future.

Unless, of course, we're not sure we want them.
I don't think you have really thought this one out!
a. The crabs already foot the cost for fixed wing aircraft, think GR7/9, I effectively work for Strike Command although I am paid by Fleet.
b. Aircraft cannot be acquired faster than Carriers, just look at Typhoon, the time to design, develop, test and build a modern advanced military aircraft would, I expect, scare the boots off you!
c. It is beyond mad to suggest that we build a platform on which allied aircraft would operate, the amount of time required to train and practice for operations from that platform would result in those allied aircraft being almost permanently based on the vessel, we are talking fixed wing deck ops here, not slinging a helo on and off.
 

SILVER_FOX

War Hero
chalky wrote: As far as I'm aware, the design process did examine smaller carriers of varying configurations and it was determined that 65,000 tons was the bare minimum required to meet the objectives established in the SDR.

... SDR? Seems such a long time ago and to think we thought the cutbacks of that era were terrible. :roll: :roll:

SF
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
The whole rationale behind the carriers is that they must provide a significant contribution to airpower in theatre. That means a big deck. We have not managed "quite well" with CVS and certainly not in terms of strike. The best we could do in the Gulf in 2001 was put up two four-ship SHAR/GR7 combo's once a day, twice at a stretch, which still needed significant USN support to get over the beach. That is not to denigrate in any way what those lads did, but in essence it was not a military capability, but rather a political statement from UK.

The "smaller" ships have been extensively looked at and just can't provide the sortie rate required for long enough and more importantly run the risk of becoming too small for future ops well before their mid-life, as CVS did. To get funding for a programme these days you have to be able to justify that capability - buying a ship less capable than the military requirement and saying we'll "make do" or "manage", will get that programme sh1tcanned sharpish.

In any case, going to a smaller ship now would put the programme back another five years at least and would not result in a massive cost-saving (you're talking tens of £M tops, not the hundreds you'd need to make a real dent in the cost). I am personally struggling to understand how these simple (and they are) ships cost £1.5Bn each. There is around 25000 te of steel in the design as is, at say £700 /te and a competent shipyard should be able to get the manhours per tonne down to 150 hrs /te. At a labour rate of £20/hr plus 100% overhead, I make that £167M per ship (12% of total). I know outfit materials and rates are much more expensive, but not by that extent - particularly for a ship with bog-all in the way of weapons.

In any case, as pointed out by Brains, aircraft programmes are massively more expensive - Typhoon is upwards of £30Bn. I'd remember that before talking about "unaffordable" ships.
 

slim

War Hero
London said:
Chalky said:
The larger air wing and the flexibility it will provide will, hopefully, return the RN to having a 'true' carrier capability and the power capabilities they provide.
But given financial restraints, this could be a couple of 35-40,000 ton carriers with 40 planes each rather than the 65,000 ton carriers currently planned.
Fukc the costs. What was the cost of loosing ships in the Falklands?
Plus how can you put a financial cost on the lives of the officers and men lost needlessly in the conflict.

One big one is better than two little ones.
 

London

Midshipman
Not_a_boffin said:
The whole rationale behind the carriers is that they must provide a significant contribution to airpower in theatre. That means a big deck. We have not managed "quite well" with CVS and certainly not in terms of strike. The best we could do in the Gulf in 2001 was put up two four-ship SHAR/GR7 combo's once a day, twice at a stretch, which still needed significant USN support to get over the beach. That is not to denigrate in any way what those lads did, but in essence it was not a military capability, but rather a political statement from UK.
So are you saying that in terms of military capability there's not much point in retaining CVS until 2012?
 

Chalky

Lantern Swinger
London said:
So are you saying that in terms of military capability there's not much point in retaining CVS until 2012?
Interesting question. I suppose you have to look at how effective they are militarily vs the cost of maintaining them in a role they are incapable of fully operating in. You would also have to trade off this with having 4 years of a total absence of 'carrier' ops vs how much knowledge will be carried over to the QE class if they were maintained. Given that one of the current batch has been re rolled permanently to a commando carrier, it's looking more and more like an academic argument.

My position would be 'yes'. They still have a role to play in limited operations, but I just don't think we should ever be under the impression that what we're currently operating is a carrier in the fullest sense as, if nothing else, it gives the bean counters an excuse to say that 'three 20,000 ton carriers has done us well so far, why not the future?'.
 
Lamri said:
I agree, although with the state of build quality in the UK these days, I think we would be better off buying in, perhaps from Germany for example.
The manufacturing industry in Britain today is fcuked, and with that sort of attitude, Lamri, is there any point in having these carriers, as there's bugger all left to defend.
 

Not_a_boffin

War Hero
Chalky's hit most of the high points. The only other reason to keep CVS would it's original role. We still need somewhere to put the cabs - despite the fervent wishes of some in town, the submarine threat has not vanished.

If you want to put 12-14 GR7 on a CVS and bomb someone, then yes, thats a military capability, but if there's any air threat or decent IADS then we will be needing some external help. At least in 2001 the FAA could provide it's own OCA.....
 

chieftiff

War Hero
Moderator
Not_a_boffin said:
The best we could do in the Gulf in 2001 was put up two four-ship SHAR/GR7 combo's once a day, twice at a stretch, which still needed significant USN support to get over the beach.
Whilst I am not disagreeing with your point I feel the need to point out that this 'fact' is in fact not (a fact). I was there (on the flight deck) and I can distinctly remember pushing a lot more sorties out than that, a lot more! Would love to discuss the launch capability of a Harrier FA2 or GR7/9 from CVS, the limitations, requirements, arming times etc but it wouldn't be appropriate, needless to say you have it very, very wrong! When we put out 2 x 4 ship pushes it was not the flight deck or the ship limiting aviation capability.
 

Chalky

Lantern Swinger
London said:
We'll look pretty stupid when the French order their new carrier in April if we cancel ours.
I think we'll look pretty stupid anyway when theirs comes in on time and on budget and smells better as well.

On the other hand, they did make a right pig's ear of the CDG so maybe our frog-munching brethren might not show us up just yet.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
soleil BBC: Guthrie says RN needs more smaller Ships, not Carriers Current Affairs 20
MoD_RSS Organising mixed ability pupils in smaller groups and helping those who need to catch up MoD News 0
MoD_RSS Chancellor responds to OTS report on simplifying everyday tax for smaller businesses MoD News 0
MoD_RSS News story: High-resolution imaging from smaller apertures MoD News 19
P It's a good thing that submarines are smaller than whales Submariners 11
alex123 Will the royal navy continue getting smaller? The Fleet 26
silverfox They may have smaller classes and more drugs... Diamond Lil's 6
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
Similar threads


















































Top