Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!
Do we have to listen to Phil? He is a very boring man (not our Phil of course, he’s captivating in his own special way). Won’t someone take the bullet for the team, listen through and provide a summary?
He’s all for operating two carriers;
MPA would be nice to have and we haven’t ruled out MPA for evermore, but Nimrod had become a cash-sink without a realistic prospect of seeing the aircraft fly, and we’re managing the risk of having no aircraft;
and CASD is affordable over the whole lifetime, though how we manage the cash spikes during the programme hasn’t been resolved, but he is against deffering other non-nuclear procurement in years that the new sub programme needs more cash.
That’s my contribution, if someone else can now dive in…
jedibeeftrix
questions more interesting than the speech.
Phil
“not our Phil of course, he’s captivating in his own special way”
My Mum says I’m special.
Observer
Phil, did she happen to add “needs” behind that “special”?
BB I agree he’s captivating in his own way. I’m still working on that damn deadknot….
Peter Elliott
Good stuff from Hammond.
I deduce: 3 active F35B squadrons of 12 planes each with OEU remaining the in USA. (If the 3 squadrons adopt a readiness cycle then there may be no need for a separate OCU: One at high readiness on the carrier; one at lower readiness on land; and one working up and only available in a surge situation.
Second QEC is almost certainly going to be the Ocean replacement.
Very pleased with all the mention of ISTAR. Slightly concerned that there was no direct mention of crowsnest. Hoepfully one of the ‘contingency’ budgets will be spent on sustaining some sort of STOVL AEW after 2016.
Hammond is obviously lobbying for some extra budget to pay for building Successor. Hope he now has the credibility with the Treasury to get it.
He is also clearly laying down the law to our European partners to get their fingers out and get committed. Also good to hear.
x
I can’t bare to sit through a presentation about the RAF that really is about maritime matters.
Phil
Now don’t you go aggravating your nerves x.
x
I have put my new tinfoil hat on and I feel better now.
Peter Elliott
Loved the joshing with Alan West too.
Slightly political. But then West has made himself into a political player so is fair game.
Peter Elliott
Hammond also promised a more ‘granular’ summary of the balanced equipment budget would be published ‘soon’.
Looking forward to that one.
Phil
“granular” – ponce for “detailed”…
Challenger
@Peter Elliot
‘Second QEC is almost certainly going to be the Ocean replacement’
With an Ocean replacement dead in the water for many years now id say that is a fair assumption, and all told not a particularly ghastly situation to end up with. Even if one of them does spend a lot of time ferrying around helicopters and marines it’s still a second carrier in service which can do carrier stuff when necessary.
Brian Black
How does the pledge to always embark a dozen jets stand up if they want to use carrier number 2 in place of Ocean?
Will the Navy have to put twelve Lightnings on each ship at sea? Or is it as simple as saying that though one of the ships looks like an aircraft carrier, it is actually just an LPH? Or could the pledged minimum of twelve F35 be split across both yachts, to provide two LPH with fast jet flights in a Marine Corps style – does that still count as twelve embarked jets on the carrier?
Peter Elliott
@Brian
My take is that in all normal circumstances it will be one carrier at readiness and just the one set of 12 Jets. The remaining 24 spots will either vacant or taken by helicopters (Merlin, Apache, Widlcat, Chinook). The ship is big enough to be both Ocean and Lusty at the same time.
What it can’t do is be in two places at once. If that is ever needed we raid the shore establishment for spare bodies and get the second carrier to sea, either with a duplicate mix of Fast Jets and Helos, or with one hull optimised as a strike carrier and the other as a full on commando carrier.
Makes good sense to me, especially if you consider that a range of American and French Flat Tops will usually also be in the mix somewhere so the number of times we need both _our_ ships at once will be low. What it guarantees is we won’t suffer gaps when our solitary avaiation asset has to go alongside and we can have 2 for a short time if we absolutely need to.
Long term looking forward to us having a pair of LHD to replace Albion and Bulwark. But thats a long way off yet. Then we will be able to guarantee 2 avaition capable ships available at all times with a surge to 3 or 4.
Simon
“…looking forward to us having a pair of LHD to replace Albion and Bulwark. But thats a long way off yet. Then we will be able to guarantee 2 avaition capable ships available at all times with a surge to 3 or 4…”
Hear hear – pointless Navy without them.
Challenger
@Peter Elliot
I was pretty much going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it!
1 active carrier using it’s vast amount of space to combine the fast jet and helicopter assault roles with another ship in reserve for the extreme times of need. You could bring up the ‘can’t be in 2 places at once’ argument, but realistically I don’t think it’s a major concern.
A CVF with a dozen F35 (id still like 16, but oh well), perhaps a dozen different helicopters and a marine battle-group will be a really potent asset in a great many scenarios.
Then 2 LHD’s to replace the Albion’s and spread the various capabilities across the 4, sounds good to me!
WiseApe
Sorry, will have to psyche myself up to listen to the speech – perhaps if it’s pouring on Sunday – does he mention LHDs or replacing Albions long term, or is this just wishful thinking?
Peter Elliott
That part’s wishful thinking I’m afraid.
Gloomy Northern Boy
Although I offer the suggestion with little optimism, I think there is still a strong argument for a third CVF – one at sea, one working-up, one just home; failing that, could we get more time at sea by deploying port and starboard crews across two hulls? On the question of the Ocean/Albion replacements, would the modular nature of the QE class make it possible to design a shorter “Commando Carrier” version more quickly and at less cost than something wholly new? In my more fevered moments I can even imagine three deployable RN Carrier Groups with a CVF, a Commando Carrier, two or three T45s and half a dozen T26 Frigates…and I’m not at the pub yet!
Simon
“…You could bring up the ‘can’t be in 2 places at once’ argument, but realistically I don’t think it’s a major concern…”
Really? Why not?
Peter Elliott
@Gloomy
I think the next two big ship hulls we build really need to be configured primarily for getting lots and lots of vehicles ashore across the beach. For a propper landing unless we can get heavy vehciles ashore all the helicopters and jets in the world won’t be enough. For that the key requirments are at least 4 fast Utility Landing Craft per ship, a well dock, and lots and lots of lane metres.
If these ships can also have organic facilities for a dozen helicpoters perched on top, or be able to host 6 F35B, then so much the better. It frees up the duty QEC and reduces the number of occasions when we have to scramble both carriers. It also gives us something we can use in the sea control or Anti Submarine Cruiser role. Sending a QEC to do those jobs would be overkill.
What I am describing is of course already designed, in the shape the Juan Carlos or Canberra class LHD, the French Mistral, or the American Wasp.
They key point is that it replaces Albion and Bulwark which are dock ships, so needs to have first class dock facilities first, and bonus avaiation facilities second.
Peter Elliott
@Simon
I did bring it up, and demolished it by pointing out that when we do need to be in two places at once (a) we have allies who can be in the other place and (b) if its a real emergency and the allies won’t help we scramble the second ship.
Thats why its not a _major_ concern.
WiseApe
@Peter Elliott – Despite my “build more carriers” mantra I happen to agree with you. Perhaps Phil H (assuming he’s still in post) can get it by Treasury by presenting it as a 2 replaces 3 deal, i.e. two LHDs to replace Ocean now and Albion/Bulwark later. Also, if we don’t wait for the latter two to be knackered, we might get some resale value on them.
@Gloomy Northern Boy – You’re a new name to me so welcome if you’re new to the site. Er, or just “hello” if you’re not. Absolutely agree with the need for at least another carrier, though not necessarily of the same design now that we’ve given up on the “mini-Nimitz” theme and finally settled on STOVL. Something like USS America retrofitted with a ski jump will do nicely
Gloomy Northern Boy
@Peter Elliot – I had the Wasp Class in mind as I wrote – I just wondered if CVFs designed in the “big lego model” style could be shortened and reconfigured more quickly and cheaply than designing something new, or if that was a non-starter in shipbuilding terms? Another alternative would be to talk to the Cousins about building a couple of America Class Ships under license over here…we could call them Colonial Class Commando Carriers!
BertramPantyshield
Surely I can’t be the only one who thinks the decent into fantasy fleet and ship design is a little premature?
If Hammond is still non-committal about spending £70m pa post-2020, then where is the approx. £3b going to come from for these two LHDs? I also can’t helping doubting the belief that 12 embarked fighters is ‘routine’. Out of home waters may read on exercise or east of Suez in the MOD’s eyes.
Forgive my cynicism, but when I last looked this project was over billions over budget, 4 years late, and the number of aircraft ordered has dropped from 138 to 48 (admittedly with an ambiguous promise of a follow-on order). I’ll keep the bubbly for another occasion…
P.S. I believe they call that pissing on chips.
Simon
Peter Elliott,
“Scramble”?
It certainly would be with it being devoid of turbines, control tower, systems, drives, etc.
I assume you’re working on maintenance just being an oil change and refit never actually happening?
Topman
@ Simon
‘“Scramble”?’
It’ll be to move loads of RAF aircraft, so best get the right terminology from the beginning.
x
@ BP
No, it is never to early for fantasy fleet. What you have to look at is the underlying truths and themes in any text (or video). Look beyond the words. Consider this video was about the RAF (I haven’t sat through it but heck…) and yet the only thing worthy of discussion is NAVAL AIRPOWER. CVF budget woes are purely political, factor that out and it is good value (for an MOD project.) As for F35x numbers well my current position on that is don’t buy A only B; whatever happens we need something in train for when Typhoon goes out of service in 2030-ish and that means a buy of 100 plus jets. (I am at the lower end, but many here make very good cases for 150 plus.) If the RAF are taking ownership of the jets the budget problem (such as there are budgets) is theirs not the RN. CVF is so much more than a mobile RAF FJ base and not to recognise that conveys to me a lack of understanding of some of the basics of naval warfare. As for the purchase of LHD no there is no money as such for new ones. But as I say we choose not to buy these things (EU contributions, overseas aid, etc.) and who knows what is around the corner in security. Nobody September 10, 2001 thought we would fighting be in Afghanistan. If HMS Ocean has done anything in her service life she has shown the RN needed two LPH built to military standards.
Simon
x,
“If HMS Ocean has done anything in her service life she has shown the RN needed two LPH built to military standards.”
How come? Surely she’s demonstrated quite the opposite – she only cost £200m fully equipped (plus another £60m further down the line when the plumbing was overhauled) didn’t she? A modern-day replacement would be of the order of £500m, it’s mot much more than a frigate, just like in 1993.
The only problem is that an LPD+LPH would probably cost more to procure and operate than a single LHD and offer little extra utility.
John Hartley
Well a slightly thicker hull on HMS Ocean & we would have got an extra decade of service out of her.
Not a Boffin
If only the £60M had been spent on the plumbing…….
It was actually spent on putting what military capability should have been in the contractual requirement into the ship.
Still, don’t let speculation get in the way of a good fantasy fleet theory. I can’t wait to hear why a “slightly thicker hull” would have added ten years to the ships life. I’ve seen the last hull statement and strangely, corrosion loss and/or fatigue risk do not seem to feature.
martin
@ Gloomy Northern Boy and Wise Ape
You can get an extra CVF for £ 1 billion 2010 pounds. So I would say if you want an extra one why bother modifying it at all or going to the hassle of buying an America. Bigger ship more flexibility.
The single CV/LPH concept also fits in with the RN’s new doctorine of a combined task force rather than the older separate ARG/CSG concept so no real issue with replacing Ocean with a QE.
I am against the RN buying a JC style LHD to replace the Albion’s. Primarily because it will mean one day the treasury will kill of the QE’s. I know it’s petty but that’s UK defence for you.
With its size the QE can operate as both carrier and LPH at the same time. Better to buy more aviation capable Bay classes to replace the Albion’s. At least this way we can use them for other stuff when not needed for amphibious warfare.
With budgets as tight as they are and replacement vessel’s as expensive as they are we need to make sure we get multiple uses out of almost every platform. Amphibs and strike carriers are great capabilities but we can’t keep them sitting around all the time for that once every ten or twenty years when we use them.
The RN of the near future will have an awesome capability to go to almost any place it needs to and get the job done independently. Imagine 2 CVF’s equipped with 24 F35’s plus an entire fleet of transport, ISTAR and attack helicopter’s showing up of your cost escorted by 4 T45’s, 4 T26’s and 2 astute submarines then add in the best amphibious brigade in the world on top of that. Yes it will only be able to do one job at a time but especially given our allies’ support can we envisage a situation where we would need more? When was the last time we were able to deploy such a force? (1961 Kuwait ?)
I suspect with the introduction of the F35D and the USS America we will gradually see even the USN moving in the same direction we are pioneering.
Dan
My take on the whole speech and questions was i have balanced the books and i am going to buy things when i can and when we do buy we will buy off the shelf so the defence industry had better start building for the export market because thats the only way they going to earn money mpa will be brought he will try to get it done via nato like in the e3a awcs model and will push for more nato conbined units but my big thing is yes it would be nice to increse nato but it will not happen the french and the germans won’ t go for it because they will want a eu army instead which we won’t sign up to
Dan
I have to agree the royal navy will be a fantastic asset for the country qe class t45 f26 astute just wish we had more hulls but we carn’t every thing
Dan
I think we will keep typhoon on till 2030 but i think we will buy a second batch of f35 a/b over a 10 year period say like 10 airframes in 2023 then 10 more in 2024 and so on and so on at least that way we don’t lose capability as we requip
martin
sorry meant F35B not D in my previous post.
Repulse
With the flip-flopping over cat and trap (and the subsequent Labour’s political point scoring), I think there is little doubt both CVF’s will enter service. I think the position of “this will be decided in the SDSR 2015″ is just a way of ensuring there is some “good news” to say.
Whilst there is a lot of good features about having LHD’s – with both CVFs available, are they needed? Assuming there will not be a significant cash injection for defence, wouldn’t the crewing requirements actually have a negative impact of the availability of the more capable CVFs and overall aviation capability. Even if the money was available I’d rather have a 3rd CVF
An opportunity was missed by not giving the LPDs / LSDs hangers, which should be addressed in future replacements. If additional aviation support is required why don’t the RN invest in an additional RFA Argus in the mid term? Though RFA Argus probably needs to be replaced from 2017…
I’m personally keen on a MARS SSS concept in the future – which doubles solid support ship requirement with the ability to support amphibious assault operations. Perhaps a larger number of these to replace the LPDs and LSDs manned primarily by the RFA would be a good way forward all round.
martin
@ Repulse
“wouldn’t the crewing requirements actually have a negative impact of the availability of the more capable CVFs and overall aviation capability. Even if the money was available I’d rather have a 3rd CVF”
I would agree that a 3rd CVF is better than an extra LHD. If we did begin eventually replacing Typhoons with F35B then we would end up with a pretty awesome and extremely flexible capability.
I think the reason that neither the Bay’s or the Albion’s have aviation capability was due to the Navy wanting an LPH in the ARG as well as the LPD and LSD’s. One could argue a sufficiently equipped vessel could do all three task’s at a lower cost.
I recon the best future option would be a third CVF and three Rotterdam type Bay’s to replace Argus, Ocean, Albion and Bulwark.
It would also be good if we when we begin to replace the Army and RAF helo’s if we choose maritime capable design’s.
martin
Does any one know how many troop’s a Queen Elizabeth Class can embark. At 65,000 t with a crew of 1,600 including air component there msut be a fair bit of room kicking about.
Gloomy Northern Boy
So are we all agreed? Build the third CVF, and provide any additional heavy lift we need for a comprehensive amphibious warfare capability by purchasing vessels constructed to a lower cost merchant standard?
Could somebody ring the Secretary of State and let him know?
Repulse
@Martin, I can’t find any official number on the number of RM’s that the CVF could accommodate.
From various blog articles the suggestion is that 200 RM’s could be accommodated easily with a full air group. Also, that reducing the number of fixed winged assets with just helo’s reduces the size of the air group. One blog post on Gabs website suggests that with 12 F35 and helo’s, a RM group of 400-500 could be be possible without overloading.
WiseApe
“sorry meant F35B not D in my previous post” – Drat, so no twin-engined two seat variant then?
I do get a little exasperated when people say things like “we can’t have everything” when what they’re really talking about is providing the proper level of forces to meet HMG’s stated tasks. That is not fantasy fleets. We are a wealthy nation. Yes, we have a deficit visible from Mars, but so does everyone else. We however can pay our debts. Just not all at once.
I prefer LHDs rather than more Bays etc because they offer extra decks AND hangars from which F35Bs can OPERATE rather than just land in an emergency. Heart says build third CVF but head says LHDs more urgent and practical – how will CVF unload heavy equipment?
My crystal ball is no more reliable than anyone elses, but I fear we may have more Libya-like interventions in our future, perhaps requiring boots on the ground, civilian evac. that sort of thing. May have to seize and hold a port. You want troops, armour and artillery for that – and be able to insert/remove them quickly. Not the job description for CVF, is it? BTW, might be heresy to some, but I would incorporate the marines into the army.
@Martin – I read the intent is for CVF to embark 600 troops max.
Build (some LHDs then) more carriers.
ChrisM
IMO three carriers without docks would be wasteful – we really need docks. I think the argument is (assuming there is a budget to spend) whether you go for through deck and plan that they can operate F-35 if needed, or go for a higher number of cheaper Bays with hangers.
The QEC is an awesome capability, but a lot of “could escalate” missions would be better served by a LHD operating a lot closer to shore than you would want to take your crown jewels.
Simon257
As both Argus and Ocean need replacement. What chance an RFA LHD?
if were starting the Fantasy Fleet list already (snigger), I opt for a fleet of V22′s, for CVF.
Seriously though. As Dave C, managed to remove the Lib Dem’s from the MOD. What chance of some Big Ticket items being ordered prior to the Election?
Observer
If you’re already scraping the barrel trying to find a squadron to station on the flattop, where would you find the planes for a 3rd carrier or even the baby carriers?
ChrisM
Either the next squadron in the rotation(ie the one at home working up) would send a detachment or if your big carrier is in the wrong place then it sends a detachment.
If the baby carrier is in the right place and the big carrier is on its way then it could send four F-35s ahead to the baby carrier. That would be the beautiful flexibility of having an LPD that could take F-35s when needed. If the naughty boys get F-35s parting their hair a lot earlier than expected you could get a lot of effect from a smaller ship.
Mark
Were are not getting any new Lpds or lph any time soon. Think about it we ant even keep the 2 Lpds we currently have fully in use which is one place money should be spent to correct. Cvf will operate absolutely fine with jets and helicopters for insertion so it very much is that job description wiseape (see us marine and uss america for further info) We have 5 dock capable ships (those tempary helo shelters maybe useful anyone know what there like in practise)) which will complement our 2 aviation ships very well I would suggest well run out of a/c rotory or fixed wing before we run out of ships to put them on.
The priority for the rfa would be 4 ships with the fort 1 level of stores provision or better and equivalent helicopter capacity to replace fort 1, 2 and argus. You could in very distant future see 4 Lpds ( John de Witt type possibly) replacing all the bays and the Lpds but that a long way away. F35 won’t be operating from a lhd unless its an emergency it physical size support and weapons capability would drive the ships very large or render its troop and helicopter provision to non existant.
ChrisM
A small ship operating an F-35 wouldnt need to do much to give a big effect. If the F-35 sensors are anything like as good as billed then simply having a defensively armed one do some runs over the AOR would be massively beneficial.
Observer
I agree with Mark, you’re more likely to run out of aircraft before running out of ships. If you do have the money, it might be better to see that your current establishment has its’ “standard loadout” first before trying to expand. Getting the CVFs up to ~48 planes might be a more important goal that a new ship. At this current moment, the CVF can be rendered toothless with ~12 well placed anti-air missiles. Losing half the planes or more will stop any offensive ops from the carrier.
I’ll say full load of planes, LHDs THEN new carriers.
x
No it is harder to get a first rate ship built/procured than it is buy aircraft. Further they are better value for money unlike; CVF will probably see Son of F35 on its decks. Aircraft are one trick ponies more akin to pieces of artillery they simply don’t have utility. Getting them to do more than one thing incurs more costs and more delays. Typhoon’s air to ground capability will be a true system not long after before it goes out of service. Probably after it has missed perhaps another war or two like Afghanistan. No HMG needs to maximise its buy of B and instead of buying A should look to buy 2 x F35b capable LHD. It is wrong to put aviation on the same level as shipping. Aviation is always a sub-system. What it does it driven by needs of land and maritime based services.
Do we have to listen to Phil? He is a very boring man (not our Phil of course, he’s captivating in his own special way). Won’t someone take the bullet for the team, listen through and provide a summary?
He’s all for operating two carriers;
MPA would be nice to have and we haven’t ruled out MPA for evermore, but Nimrod had become a cash-sink without a realistic prospect of seeing the aircraft fly, and we’re managing the risk of having no aircraft;
and CASD is affordable over the whole lifetime, though how we manage the cash spikes during the programme hasn’t been resolved, but he is against deffering other non-nuclear procurement in years that the new sub programme needs more cash.
That’s my contribution, if someone else can now dive in…
questions more interesting than the speech.
“not our Phil of course, he’s captivating in his own special way”
My Mum says I’m special.
Phil, did she happen to add “needs” behind that “special”?
BB I agree he’s captivating in his own way. I’m still working on that damn deadknot….
Good stuff from Hammond.
I deduce: 3 active F35B squadrons of 12 planes each with OEU remaining the in USA. (If the 3 squadrons adopt a readiness cycle then there may be no need for a separate OCU: One at high readiness on the carrier; one at lower readiness on land; and one working up and only available in a surge situation.
Second QEC is almost certainly going to be the Ocean replacement.
Very pleased with all the mention of ISTAR. Slightly concerned that there was no direct mention of crowsnest. Hoepfully one of the ‘contingency’ budgets will be spent on sustaining some sort of STOVL AEW after 2016.
Hammond is obviously lobbying for some extra budget to pay for building Successor. Hope he now has the credibility with the Treasury to get it.
He is also clearly laying down the law to our European partners to get their fingers out and get committed. Also good to hear.
I can’t bare to sit through a presentation about the RAF that really is about maritime matters.
Now don’t you go aggravating your nerves x.
I have put my new tinfoil hat on and I feel better now.
Loved the joshing with Alan West too.
Slightly political. But then West has made himself into a political player so is fair game.
Hammond also promised a more ‘granular’ summary of the balanced equipment budget would be published ‘soon’.
Looking forward to that one.
“granular” – ponce for “detailed”…
@Peter Elliot
‘Second QEC is almost certainly going to be the Ocean replacement’
With an Ocean replacement dead in the water for many years now id say that is a fair assumption, and all told not a particularly ghastly situation to end up with. Even if one of them does spend a lot of time ferrying around helicopters and marines it’s still a second carrier in service which can do carrier stuff when necessary.
How does the pledge to always embark a dozen jets stand up if they want to use carrier number 2 in place of Ocean?
Will the Navy have to put twelve Lightnings on each ship at sea? Or is it as simple as saying that though one of the ships looks like an aircraft carrier, it is actually just an LPH? Or could the pledged minimum of twelve F35 be split across both yachts, to provide two LPH with fast jet flights in a Marine Corps style – does that still count as twelve embarked jets on the carrier?
@Brian
My take is that in all normal circumstances it will be one carrier at readiness and just the one set of 12 Jets. The remaining 24 spots will either vacant or taken by helicopters (Merlin, Apache, Widlcat, Chinook). The ship is big enough to be both Ocean and Lusty at the same time.
What it can’t do is be in two places at once. If that is ever needed we raid the shore establishment for spare bodies and get the second carrier to sea, either with a duplicate mix of Fast Jets and Helos, or with one hull optimised as a strike carrier and the other as a full on commando carrier.
Makes good sense to me, especially if you consider that a range of American and French Flat Tops will usually also be in the mix somewhere so the number of times we need both _our_ ships at once will be low. What it guarantees is we won’t suffer gaps when our solitary avaiation asset has to go alongside and we can have 2 for a short time if we absolutely need to.
Long term looking forward to us having a pair of LHD to replace Albion and Bulwark. But thats a long way off yet. Then we will be able to guarantee 2 avaition capable ships available at all times with a surge to 3 or 4.
“…looking forward to us having a pair of LHD to replace Albion and Bulwark. But thats a long way off yet. Then we will be able to guarantee 2 avaition capable ships available at all times with a surge to 3 or 4…”
Hear hear – pointless Navy without them.
@Peter Elliot
I was pretty much going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it!
1 active carrier using it’s vast amount of space to combine the fast jet and helicopter assault roles with another ship in reserve for the extreme times of need. You could bring up the ‘can’t be in 2 places at once’ argument, but realistically I don’t think it’s a major concern.
A CVF with a dozen F35 (id still like 16, but oh well), perhaps a dozen different helicopters and a marine battle-group will be a really potent asset in a great many scenarios.
Then 2 LHD’s to replace the Albion’s and spread the various capabilities across the 4, sounds good to me!
Sorry, will have to psyche myself up to listen to the speech – perhaps if it’s pouring on Sunday – does he mention LHDs or replacing Albions long term, or is this just wishful thinking?
That part’s wishful thinking I’m afraid.
Although I offer the suggestion with little optimism, I think there is still a strong argument for a third CVF – one at sea, one working-up, one just home; failing that, could we get more time at sea by deploying port and starboard crews across two hulls? On the question of the Ocean/Albion replacements, would the modular nature of the QE class make it possible to design a shorter “Commando Carrier” version more quickly and at less cost than something wholly new? In my more fevered moments I can even imagine three deployable RN Carrier Groups with a CVF, a Commando Carrier, two or three T45s and half a dozen T26 Frigates…and I’m not at the pub yet!
“…You could bring up the ‘can’t be in 2 places at once’ argument, but realistically I don’t think it’s a major concern…”
Really? Why not?
@Gloomy
I think the next two big ship hulls we build really need to be configured primarily for getting lots and lots of vehicles ashore across the beach. For a propper landing unless we can get heavy vehciles ashore all the helicopters and jets in the world won’t be enough. For that the key requirments are at least 4 fast Utility Landing Craft per ship, a well dock, and lots and lots of lane metres.
If these ships can also have organic facilities for a dozen helicpoters perched on top, or be able to host 6 F35B, then so much the better. It frees up the duty QEC and reduces the number of occasions when we have to scramble both carriers. It also gives us something we can use in the sea control or Anti Submarine Cruiser role. Sending a QEC to do those jobs would be overkill.
What I am describing is of course already designed, in the shape the Juan Carlos or Canberra class LHD, the French Mistral, or the American Wasp.
They key point is that it replaces Albion and Bulwark which are dock ships, so needs to have first class dock facilities first, and bonus avaiation facilities second.
@Simon
I did bring it up, and demolished it by pointing out that when we do need to be in two places at once (a) we have allies who can be in the other place and (b) if its a real emergency and the allies won’t help we scramble the second ship.
Thats why its not a _major_ concern.
@Peter Elliott – Despite my “build more carriers” mantra I happen to agree with you. Perhaps Phil H (assuming he’s still in post) can get it by Treasury by presenting it as a 2 replaces 3 deal, i.e. two LHDs to replace Ocean now and Albion/Bulwark later. Also, if we don’t wait for the latter two to be knackered, we might get some resale value on them.
@Gloomy Northern Boy – You’re a new name to me so welcome if you’re new to the site. Er, or just “hello” if you’re not. Absolutely agree with the need for at least another carrier, though not necessarily of the same design now that we’ve given up on the “mini-Nimitz” theme and finally settled on STOVL. Something like USS America retrofitted with a ski jump will do nicely
@Peter Elliot – I had the Wasp Class in mind as I wrote – I just wondered if CVFs designed in the “big lego model” style could be shortened and reconfigured more quickly and cheaply than designing something new, or if that was a non-starter in shipbuilding terms? Another alternative would be to talk to the Cousins about building a couple of America Class Ships under license over here…we could call them Colonial Class Commando Carriers!
Surely I can’t be the only one who thinks the decent into fantasy fleet and ship design is a little premature?
If Hammond is still non-committal about spending £70m pa post-2020, then where is the approx. £3b going to come from for these two LHDs? I also can’t helping doubting the belief that 12 embarked fighters is ‘routine’. Out of home waters may read on exercise or east of Suez in the MOD’s eyes.
Forgive my cynicism, but when I last looked this project was over billions over budget, 4 years late, and the number of aircraft ordered has dropped from 138 to 48 (admittedly with an ambiguous promise of a follow-on order). I’ll keep the bubbly for another occasion…
P.S. I believe they call that pissing on chips.
Peter Elliott,
“Scramble”?
It certainly would be with it being devoid of turbines, control tower, systems, drives, etc.
I assume you’re working on maintenance just being an oil change and refit never actually happening?
@ Simon
‘“Scramble”?’
It’ll be to move loads of RAF aircraft, so best get the right terminology from the beginning.
@ BP
No, it is never to early for fantasy fleet. What you have to look at is the underlying truths and themes in any text (or video). Look beyond the words. Consider this video was about the RAF (I haven’t sat through it but heck…) and yet the only thing worthy of discussion is NAVAL AIRPOWER.
CVF budget woes are purely political, factor that out and it is good value (for an MOD project.) As for F35x numbers well my current position on that is don’t buy A only B; whatever happens we need something in train for when Typhoon goes out of service in 2030-ish and that means a buy of 100 plus jets. (I am at the lower end, but many here make very good cases for 150 plus.) If the RAF are taking ownership of the jets the budget problem (such as there are budgets) is theirs not the RN. CVF is so much more than a mobile RAF FJ base and not to recognise that conveys to me a lack of understanding of some of the basics of naval warfare. As for the purchase of LHD no there is no money as such for new ones. But as I say we choose not to buy these things (EU contributions, overseas aid, etc.) and who knows what is around the corner in security. Nobody September 10, 2001 thought we would fighting be in Afghanistan. If HMS Ocean has done anything in her service life she has shown the RN needed two LPH built to military standards.
x,
“If HMS Ocean has done anything in her service life she has shown the RN needed two LPH built to military standards.”
How come? Surely she’s demonstrated quite the opposite – she only cost £200m fully equipped (plus another £60m further down the line when the plumbing was overhauled) didn’t she? A modern-day replacement would be of the order of £500m, it’s mot much more than a frigate, just like in 1993.
The only problem is that an LPD+LPH would probably cost more to procure and operate than a single LHD and offer little extra utility.
Well a slightly thicker hull on HMS Ocean & we would have got an extra decade of service out of her.
If only the £60M had been spent on the plumbing…….
It was actually spent on putting what military capability should have been in the contractual requirement into the ship.
Still, don’t let speculation get in the way of a good fantasy fleet theory. I can’t wait to hear why a “slightly thicker hull” would have added ten years to the ships life. I’ve seen the last hull statement and strangely, corrosion loss and/or fatigue risk do not seem to feature.
@ Gloomy Northern Boy and Wise Ape
You can get an extra CVF for £ 1 billion 2010 pounds. So I would say if you want an extra one why bother modifying it at all or going to the hassle of buying an America. Bigger ship more flexibility.
The single CV/LPH concept also fits in with the RN’s new doctorine of a combined task force rather than the older separate ARG/CSG concept so no real issue with replacing Ocean with a QE.
I am against the RN buying a JC style LHD to replace the Albion’s. Primarily because it will mean one day the treasury will kill of the QE’s. I know it’s petty but that’s UK defence for you.
With its size the QE can operate as both carrier and LPH at the same time. Better to buy more aviation capable Bay classes to replace the Albion’s. At least this way we can use them for other stuff when not needed for amphibious warfare.
With budgets as tight as they are and replacement vessel’s as expensive as they are we need to make sure we get multiple uses out of almost every platform. Amphibs and strike carriers are great capabilities but we can’t keep them sitting around all the time for that once every ten or twenty years when we use them.
The RN of the near future will have an awesome capability to go to almost any place it needs to and get the job done independently. Imagine 2 CVF’s equipped with 24 F35’s plus an entire fleet of transport, ISTAR and attack helicopter’s showing up of your cost escorted by 4 T45’s, 4 T26’s and 2 astute submarines then add in the best amphibious brigade in the world on top of that. Yes it will only be able to do one job at a time but especially given our allies’ support can we envisage a situation where we would need more? When was the last time we were able to deploy such a force? (1961 Kuwait ?)
I suspect with the introduction of the F35D and the USS America we will gradually see even the USN moving in the same direction we are pioneering.
My take on the whole speech and questions was i have balanced the books and i am going to buy things when i can and when we do buy we will buy off the shelf so the defence industry had better start building for the export market because thats the only way they going to earn money mpa will be brought he will try to get it done via nato like in the e3a awcs model and will push for more nato conbined units but my big thing is yes it would be nice to increse nato but it will not happen the french and the germans won’ t go for it because they will want a eu army instead which we won’t sign up to
I have to agree the royal navy will be a fantastic asset for the country qe class t45 f26 astute just wish we had more hulls but we carn’t every thing
I think we will keep typhoon on till 2030 but i think we will buy a second batch of f35 a/b over a 10 year period say like 10 airframes in 2023 then 10 more in 2024 and so on and so on at least that way we don’t lose capability as we requip
sorry meant F35B not D in my previous post.
With the flip-flopping over cat and trap (and the subsequent Labour’s political point scoring), I think there is little doubt both CVF’s will enter service. I think the position of “this will be decided in the SDSR 2015″ is just a way of ensuring there is some “good news” to say.
Whilst there is a lot of good features about having LHD’s – with both CVFs available, are they needed? Assuming there will not be a significant cash injection for defence, wouldn’t the crewing requirements actually have a negative impact of the availability of the more capable CVFs and overall aviation capability. Even if the money was available I’d rather have a 3rd CVF
An opportunity was missed by not giving the LPDs / LSDs hangers, which should be addressed in future replacements. If additional aviation support is required why don’t the RN invest in an additional RFA Argus in the mid term? Though RFA Argus probably needs to be replaced from 2017…
I’m personally keen on a MARS SSS concept in the future – which doubles solid support ship requirement with the ability to support amphibious assault operations. Perhaps a larger number of these to replace the LPDs and LSDs manned primarily by the RFA would be a good way forward all round.
@ Repulse
“wouldn’t the crewing requirements actually have a negative impact of the availability of the more capable CVFs and overall aviation capability. Even if the money was available I’d rather have a 3rd CVF”
I would agree that a 3rd CVF is better than an extra LHD. If we did begin eventually replacing Typhoons with F35B then we would end up with a pretty awesome and extremely flexible capability.
I think the reason that neither the Bay’s or the Albion’s have aviation capability was due to the Navy wanting an LPH in the ARG as well as the LPD and LSD’s. One could argue a sufficiently equipped vessel could do all three task’s at a lower cost.
I recon the best future option would be a third CVF and three Rotterdam type Bay’s to replace Argus, Ocean, Albion and Bulwark.
It would also be good if we when we begin to replace the Army and RAF helo’s if we choose maritime capable design’s.
Does any one know how many troop’s a Queen Elizabeth Class can embark. At 65,000 t with a crew of 1,600 including air component there msut be a fair bit of room kicking about.
So are we all agreed? Build the third CVF, and provide any additional heavy lift we need for a comprehensive amphibious warfare capability by purchasing vessels constructed to a lower cost merchant standard?
Could somebody ring the Secretary of State and let him know?
@Martin, I can’t find any official number on the number of RM’s that the CVF could accommodate.
From various blog articles the suggestion is that 200 RM’s could be accommodated easily with a full air group. Also, that reducing the number of fixed winged assets with just helo’s reduces the size of the air group. One blog post on Gabs website suggests that with 12 F35 and helo’s, a RM group of 400-500 could be be possible without overloading.
“sorry meant F35B not D in my previous post” – Drat, so no twin-engined two seat variant then?
I do get a little exasperated when people say things like “we can’t have everything” when what they’re really talking about is providing the proper level of forces to meet HMG’s stated tasks. That is not fantasy fleets. We are a wealthy nation. Yes, we have a deficit visible from Mars, but so does everyone else. We however can pay our debts. Just not all at once.
I prefer LHDs rather than more Bays etc because they offer extra decks AND hangars from which F35Bs can OPERATE rather than just land in an emergency. Heart says build third CVF but head says LHDs more urgent and practical – how will CVF unload heavy equipment?
My crystal ball is no more reliable than anyone elses, but I fear we may have more Libya-like interventions in our future, perhaps requiring boots on the ground, civilian evac. that sort of thing. May have to seize and hold a port. You want troops, armour and artillery for that – and be able to insert/remove them quickly. Not the job description for CVF, is it? BTW, might be heresy to some, but I would incorporate the marines into the army.
@Martin – I read the intent is for CVF to embark 600 troops max.
Build (some LHDs then) more carriers.
IMO three carriers without docks would be wasteful – we really need docks. I think the argument is (assuming there is a budget to spend) whether you go for through deck and plan that they can operate F-35 if needed, or go for a higher number of cheaper Bays with hangers.
The QEC is an awesome capability, but a lot of “could escalate” missions would be better served by a LHD operating a lot closer to shore than you would want to take your crown jewels.
As both Argus and Ocean need replacement. What chance an RFA LHD?
if were starting the Fantasy Fleet list already (snigger), I opt for a fleet of V22′s, for CVF.
Seriously though. As Dave C, managed to remove the Lib Dem’s from the MOD. What chance of some Big Ticket items being ordered prior to the Election?
If you’re already scraping the barrel trying to find a squadron to station on the flattop, where would you find the planes for a 3rd carrier or even the baby carriers?
Either the next squadron in the rotation(ie the one at home working up) would send a detachment or if your big carrier is in the wrong place then it sends a detachment.
If the baby carrier is in the right place and the big carrier is on its way then it could send four F-35s ahead to the baby carrier. That would be the beautiful flexibility of having an LPD that could take F-35s when needed. If the naughty boys get F-35s parting their hair a lot earlier than expected you could get a lot of effect from a smaller ship.
Were are not getting any new Lpds or lph any time soon. Think about it we ant even keep the 2 Lpds we currently have fully in use which is one place money should be spent to correct. Cvf will operate absolutely fine with jets and helicopters for insertion so it very much is that job description wiseape (see us marine and uss america for further info) We have 5 dock capable ships (those tempary helo shelters maybe useful anyone know what there like in practise)) which will complement our 2 aviation ships very well I would suggest well run out of a/c rotory or fixed wing before we run out of ships to put them on.
The priority for the rfa would be 4 ships with the fort 1 level of stores provision or better and equivalent helicopter capacity to replace fort 1, 2 and argus. You could in very distant future see 4 Lpds ( John de Witt type possibly) replacing all the bays and the Lpds but that a long way away. F35 won’t be operating from a lhd unless its an emergency it physical size support and weapons capability would drive the ships very large or render its troop and helicopter provision to non existant.
A small ship operating an F-35 wouldnt need to do much to give a big effect. If the F-35 sensors are anything like as good as billed then simply having a defensively armed one do some runs over the AOR would be massively beneficial.
I agree with Mark, you’re more likely to run out of aircraft before running out of ships. If you do have the money, it might be better to see that your current establishment has its’ “standard loadout” first before trying to expand. Getting the CVFs up to ~48 planes might be a more important goal that a new ship. At this current moment, the CVF can be rendered toothless with ~12 well placed anti-air missiles. Losing half the planes or more will stop any offensive ops from the carrier.
I’ll say full load of planes, LHDs THEN new carriers.
No it is harder to get a first rate ship built/procured than it is buy aircraft. Further they are better value for money unlike; CVF will probably see Son of F35 on its decks. Aircraft are one trick ponies more akin to pieces of artillery they simply don’t have utility. Getting them to do more than one thing incurs more costs and more delays. Typhoon’s air to ground capability will be a true system not long after before it goes out of service. Probably after it has missed perhaps another war or two like Afghanistan. No HMG needs to maximise its buy of B and instead of buying A should look to buy 2 x F35b capable LHD. It is wrong to put aviation on the same level as shipping. Aviation is always a sub-system. What it does it driven by needs of land and maritime based services.