Printable View
A short but interesting film clip of the UK's version of the F4 Phantom being tested on HMS Eagle. I believe that I am correct in stating that only ever one front line Fleet Air Arm squadron became fully operational with the F.A.A. version of the F4 Phantom and operationally deployed only on HMS Ark Royal.
YouTube
How time fies, not only in the change of aircraft on aircraft carriers, but also aircraft carriers themselves......HMS Queen Elizabeth 11 is on sea triais currently in the North Sea she'll have the latest VTOL aircraft on board, like the Harrier.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The writing was already on the wall when the RN got its first F-4's, and despite the trials being conducted on Eagle, the Govt didn't want to spend the money on doing the refit to Eagle for the water-cooled JBD's needed for the reheated Spey on the F-4's, (which the Ark had) so despite the Eagle being in much better condition than the Ark, half of the RN's F-4's were passed to the RAF (in part to negate the cancellation of the F-111 order for the RAF) and the RN soldiered on with just the Ark for the 1970's (and smaller Hermes as a helo carrier) instead of the planned 3 carrier fleet of new CVA-01 (replacing Victorious), Eagle and Hermes (reconfigured as a Commando carrier)
Ark Royal wasn't even supposed to go into the 1970's, as she was already knackered, yet the better options were canned and she soldiered on until 1978, when the RN's Buccs and Phantoms were handed over to the RAF.
Great to see the Royal Navy getting back into the swing of big flat top operations, seeing two 72,000 ton carriers in RN sevice makes me proud to be British....
They make Ark and Eagle look small!
One of my top favorite aircraft. Looks Mach 1 @ a dead stop.
Thanks
Nice post.
Sadly, the recent NAO report on the RN and its CBG plan paints a less than rosy picture of the future, and post Covid financial pressures will likely make it even worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Key point summary of the NAO report:
The new Crowsnest system is 18 months late, which will affect Carrier Strike capabilities in its first two years. The initial contracted capability will not be available until September 2021, 18 months later than planned. Further delays mean that it does not expect to have full airborne radar capability until May 2023.
The Department has not yet made funding available for enough Lightning II jets to sustain Carrier Strike operations over its life.
The Department plans to reassess the number and type of Lightning II jets that it needs in the Integrated Review, but its ability to use Carrier Strike will be constrained if it has fewer jets than planned.
The Department has still not provided the necessary funding for logistics projects and munitions.
The Department expects to meet its target of declaring initial operating capability for Carrier Strike in December 2020, but with a basic(airborne) radar capability.
Initial operating capability is a single, trained Lightning II squadron (up to 12 jets), able to embark on a joint warfighting mission with appropriate support and maritime protection.
The Departments policy ambition for Carrier Strike will be reviewed.
It will assess the impact of ongoing financial pressures and determine its defence priorities, including whether it can fund all the original roles of Carrier Strike, including supporting amphibious capabilities
The Department faces investment prioritisation decisions to maintain and enhance the Carrier Strike capability over the longer term.
The Department has not established a consolidated view of the enhancements that are needed to continue to develop Carrier Strike capabilities, or their cost. It will need to make funding decisions in the next 10 years, such as deciding how to replace or extend Merlin helicopters, which are due to go out of service in 2030 (see point one about Crowsnest). These decisions will create added funding pressures at a time when the Equipment Plan is already unaffordable.
The Department is developing a fuller understanding of what Carrier Strike will cost to operate and support in the future.
Given the strategic importance of Carrier Strike, we would expect the Department to develop a clear view of support and operating costs. It estimated the additional costs of Carrier Strike in 2017, but this did not include all elements of a carrier strike group. It plans to update this estimate after the first deployment in 2021.
The Department may not have made sufficient provision in later years budgets to reflect the full costs of operating Carrier Strike
Failure to make realistic cost estimates creates a risk that the Department will face increased financial pressure in the future, perpetuating the cycle of short-term decision-making that we have seen in our reports on the Equipment Plan
The Department needs to ensure the revised governance arrangements establish clear responsibilities and cross-command coherence for developing Carrier Strike.
While the RN is getting on with what its got to do as best it can with what its been given and trying to make things look like they are OK, in the way our Armed Forces always does, the reality of these two new carriers are actually very different. I wouldn't be surprised to see one or even both be sold by the end of the decade, or one sitting in base having been stripped of bits to keep the other going as MOD haven't costed for sufficient spares to keep them both active, as per the NAO report.
Well, carrier strike was always a ticking time bomb regarding funding and while they might have been able to fudge the costs during construction, now they are being worked up, the costs must be growing all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
Something has to give, I wonder what it will be??
One would have thought that a logical option would have been to retain at least some "bagger" Sea King AEW helicopters until the new "Crowsnest Merlins" came into service.
Royal Navy Bids Farewell to the Sea King | Defense News: Aviation International News
The next major naval war is certainly going to be revealing. I doubt the survivability of surface ships is anything like as good as it will need to be to compensate for the power and accuracy of modern weapons.
And of course displacement hulls are so slow that their inability to keep up with submarines even in calm seas just keeps getting worse and worse.
As for aircraft carriers, the submariners know what their fate will be.
We are now at or close to the point of remotely guided subs, subs with very small crews, or even subs run by artificial intelligence.
And the "mine" technology must be truly frightening.
The issue is more that all this money is spent on Crowsnest and by the time its FOC in 2023 (if we're lucky) it will then only have a service life of 7 years, as that's when the Merlin OSD is......and then what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Not to mention no procuremnt package of spares for the carriers, no funds for the logistics support of them, munitions supply and everything else to actually support a CBG.
Its as if the only point of all this was a willy waving jobs for Scotland signed by Gordo Brown with no real commitment to actually using the damn things for the reasons you build them, which has been continued or even made worse by subsequent Govt., because no one wanted to be the one to sign the cancel instruction.
Given whats going on with China in the Pacific maybe we could flog them to the Aussie's, as with the demise of their RAAF long range F-111's and the demise of the RAN carrier's they are looking a little vunerable with a lot of sea to cover.
I have mentioned on here before about Abbey Wood MOD laying off 5,000 staff some years ago now, and just goes to show, they clearly were seen for what they were, the majority, a waste of space, literally!!.
As they do, a new manager comes in and brings in loads of staff so he can relax a bit, to a point where nobody does anything fast, and really sits and twiddles their thumbs and does very little , whilst a long a corridor one person is working like a dog.........odd!
I remember how this was all exposed. It was to do with a catapult system that was fitted to the then new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth and cost millions, which after installation, they realised a procurement person had bought a catapult system for an American jet we didn't, and were not going to use in the Royal Navy.
The truth on the Navy carrier debacle? Industry got away with murder • The Register
I had a friend, whose sole job was to fly around the world buying up all the spares for the VC10 aircraft's we had to keep them flying. She told me that her first class seat was always booked for her and the best hotels on arrival!!!
Every day, I get a link to a webiste in the UK, where an MOD clearance site sells "brand new" Range Rovers, some armoured which cost millions to produce for sale. They currently have hundreds of Catapillar generators all boxed all new unused.....................how can procurement people get that so wrong!
I developed and manufacturerd a torch, which MOD bought after it saved two EOD lads lives as it was so powerful if fopund trip wires in bunkers in Iraq. They would order them say 100 at a time, then I would see brand new ones exactly the same unused for sale on this particular website at a fraction of the cost WTF!!!Nuff said!!
It's the age old issue of zero accountability Gil in a bloated civil service, unfit for the task and successive governments ordering equipment to appease constituencies and prop up arms companies...
I think I mentioned this before, a friend of mine works for an engineering company in Gloucestershire, supplying high end measuring and calibration kit to industry and defence.
One of the companies they deal with supplied certain equipment to the RAF in relation to Tornado overhaul. 12 pieces of equipment were ordered by someone in Abbey wood, at a cost of over 1 million, never delivered, despite constant chasing by the company.
A year later a repeat order was placed, when informed about previous equipment in store, the 'new' Abbey Wood drone, just said " not my problem, make 12 more"!
Another great Abby wood case, another mate owned a small courier company. Back in the early 2000's he had a regular job, taking a sealed envelope from a General based at Abbey wood to Portsmouth, FAO a certain Admiral.
This was twice a month on Avarage and a good little earner for his business ... Turns out they were sending chess moves to each other and discussing sandwich choices for there next meeting.....
You couldn't make this sh*it up and this is just the tip of the waste, they throw away billions in poor planning and implementation every year.....
Not quite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
There was always the option during build to make the carriers cat n trap, which is what we should have done from day one, but dithering and the lack of steam generation for traditional catapaults (and the Harrier mafia within the RAF) pushed the no cats route, and then a change of mind in Govt and the announcement we would change the F-35B order for F-35C and fit the EMALS system that was being fitted to the new US carriers.
Then they changed their mind again, and went back to the B and no cats n traps.
We should have stayed with cats n traps and cancelled the ludicrously expensive not so stealthy jets and bought some new Super Hornets instead (just as USN are now doing) the money saved would have more than paid for the EMALS cat system and redesign of the carriers to accommodate them. This would have also allowed a much cheaper off the shelf buy of E-2D AEW aircraft (just as the French have done) and shaved a fortune and time with all the Crowsnest fiasco. Which would have also allowed much better cross decking options with the USN as well as the French rather than only the USMC (which doesnt have organic AEW as they rely on the USN CBG's)
As usual HMG wants to give the impression to the rest of the world we still deserve a place at the top table, but not wanting to actually spend the money to do it properly, and expect our wonderful Armed Forces to get on with it and make do.
I'm not so sure about cats and traps, they are a great option for a country like the US, who can afford to have a lot of fleet carriers and multiple air wings cycling in and out of operations and training.
It's a real problem if you only have a few squadrons of fast jets and a couple of carriers.
Keeping aircrew current and carrier qualified is nightmare, the pressure on the handful of qualified aircrew and there families would be enormous, probably enough for very high turnover and subsequently more strain on training.
The B model F35 isn't as capable as the A or C sure, but it's a quantum leap up from Harrier and once it's been fully debugged, it will serve us well.
The flexibility of our big deck STOVOL carriers, with the ease of getting new pilots Carrier qualified and lower costs of operation all round, is a very good fit for the UK.
'If' they are properly funded to operate as intended, with four front line Lightening squadrons etc. A buy of the COD variant of the V22 for COD and AAR would be a massive force multiplier and close the gap between CTOL and STOVOL carriers.
If we were ever able to put 36 fully supported jets on board a fully supported carrier (looking remote) they would be a highly visible and capable deterrent.
Ah...........it won't be long John, they'll be building a creche on board for the young families and their kids so there's no upset, they could also lend a hand as they are so short of crew anyway!!
Lord Horatio Nelson will be turning in his grave........."What women onboard warships bah":surrender:
We managed for nearly a decade with just the one carrier after Eagle was decommisioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
And the French are managing it as well with just one, and doing cat n trap as well, and they developed their own fighter to fly off of it...! and that's why I think we've missed a trick by jumping into bed with the USMC rather than shared carrier support with an European ally.
Are we really going to do USMC style expedition warfare?
We are never going to buy V22 for the UK........have you seen the costs of those things......!Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
The cost per per flying hour is even more than a F-22 Raptor.....!!
Only stuff like the C5 Galaxy, B52, B1B etc cost more per flying hour than a V22...!!
Well yes, just my rose tinted glasses version of what's possible if properly funded...Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
You can't really compare the fleet air arm of the 1970's with today, they spent the last 10 years of fast jet carriers operations with the best of the best, the stripped out core of the Fleet air arms finest, supported by excellent pilots on secondment from the RAF.
The French, I hear fro friends, are struggling to maintain carrier aviation with high turn over of pilots, condensed into a small corps of carrier qualified personnel.
Just my opinion, but it's not a good fit for a small Navy.
If the government want properly funded Carrier Strike, then something else will have to go to free up funding and personnel, Royal Marines full spectrum capability (Albion and Bulwark specifically), with a reduction to a dedicated raiding force and Special forces support.
Then we have Dreadnought coming along sucking up the funds too with each passing year....
Something has to give!
But they were due to go anyway.....as part of the cost saving to fund the carriers, a decision that was reversed 18 months ago by DefSec.......but, as you say, that may well get reversed back again, especially with the recent announcement about the RM's new uniform and new Commando role, closer to the WW2 roots of the Commando's.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Which then begs the question, what the hell do we need the carriers for now, as they were there for amphib assault support?
As you say about the French, its hard doing it properly, unless you fund it properly.
Which is why in my view we shouldn't have built the carriers, as we just won't fund it properly. If you do it, do it properly to allow maximum cross-decking with others, and that means cat n trap....with stand off capability, and organic AAR and AEW capability. Even the USN are now struggling with the decision to retire the Tomcat early as the Super Hornet and F-35C don't have the long range fleet protection ability that the F-14 was designed to offer, and that means the carriers have to be closer to the risk zone. Ours will be even closer.....as we can only cross deck with the USMC, and 20 years after that Blair/Bush sponsored inflexible decision, we are living in a different world.
Sadly I fear these two carriers may turn out to be the most expensive white elephants in MOD history.
"Sadly I fear these two carriers may turn out to be the most expensive white elephants in MOD history".
A very good chance of that!
Underutilised and not properly supported.
It's like our Thypoon fleet, the idea in principle of a single multirole fighter shared across the squadrons is predictively turning into a fleets within fleets situation, with retrospective rework to the current build standard,
(batch 1 aside) either watered down, or probably, just outright abandoned.
Another waisted opportunity.
Don't get me started on Tempest, more chance of me being the first man on Mars than that ever getting wind under its wings.....
Re the French Navy fast jet pilots, they are very highly regarded and sought after in industry.
A friend used to work for a defence contractor and virtually all their pilots, were ex French Navy, the intense stress ( professional and family) on such a small group, made them easy to lure into the private sector by all accounts!
I expect that the solution that will be "found" is to use one of the carriers as a commando carrier thus reducing the requirement for fixed wing aircraft by 50% and delivering a ship that is completely impractical for the task for what it is now required to do.
And exactly the same philosophy is being used by LM with the F-35, as our cousins are now finding out to their cost........and which we'll have to go through the same pain barrier with again (and we won't have the luxury of numbers to deal with it with the F-35B with such a small fleet)Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
The pursuit of the latest whizzy technofest toy and the shear time it takes to go from design through to FOC is just ridiculous now......and a lower budget one step back in tech, but having more of them and getting them into service quicker, should be the way we in the UK should be going.....the UK is no longer the pre-WW2 British Empire....sadly.
Quantity has a quality all its own......
The Rolls-Royce Spey-engined Phantom turned out to be slower than the standard models, despite developing more thrust.
You certainly knew a quiet Rolls Royce engine compared to the old smokey yank McDonell Douglas equivalent.
Best move HM Forces did, the enemy never heard THEM coming;)!!
I hope that in designing the QE they put more thought into the flight deck than we did with the America class ships. The F 35B and Osprey V-22 engines run very hot (unlike the cool Pegasus in the Harrier) and are damaging the deck surface. A little like some of the early jets and downward exhaust (also running on Petrol). Right now the number of flight ops are reduced but the USN says that the newer ships will be fine. I'm not sure but I think the Soviet Kirovs had a tile surface for the Forger VTOL and did not have the damage we are seeing here.
Good luck to you all.
Dave
Heaven for bid, we ever have a war then. Sounds like we won't need bombs dropping on the flight deck by the enemy, our own aircraft will burn a hole through it anyway. Crazy world. Why not just make the whole flight deck in Titanium or even asbestos :lol::madsmile:
That's why the RN/RAF have the ski-ramp for take-off, and are training for using the SRVL (Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing) method rather than the vertical landing method used in the Harrier days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wineman
Also so that any unused ordinance can be brought back to the carrier rather than dumped at sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeRam
From that NAO report, it appears we haven't bought much in the way of any ordinance yet.....so, that might still be wishful thinking :madsmile:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Maybe some pop-up high pressure sprinklers are in order? ;) Sounds pretty time consuming to replace. https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=51351Quote:
Originally Posted by Wineman
Reading that blurb about refurbishng the decks everytime they reach so many landings and take offs and before each operational deployment, surely, with the amount of manmade impregnable surfaces we have on the planet some alternative on balance of cost, could be used as a "one off" surface.
Yes it would be highly expensive, but it sounds like a new surface is a regular thing, and surely a thing of the past.
Thats an ex Army man speaking..................so what do I know. I am sure there will be a knowledgeble Jack Tar out there on ether side of the pond who knows the reason!!
Our last Invincible class carriers already had these ,"Pre-Wetting", intended to wash nuclear "fallout" from the ship. Presumably the new carriers have been fitted with them as a matter of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surpmil
Pre wetting - YouTube
Sounds like a job for the metallurgists alright. Textured Monel? But any non-rusting metal would also develop a polish very quickly that would be a no-no from a visibility point of view.
Maybe the work would be easier done on the composition and characteristics of aircraft tires (not to mention their sizes and the gear designs)
Peacetime maintenance has a way of getting difficult in wartime.
And "experts" have been known to screw up: https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ii_113037.html