England's New Super-Carriers

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


Ok, first of all, I just have to say, that's funny as hell there, I don't care who you are (the Hi Zaphod!).

Secondly, something stinks in Denmark. I have the feeling there's a little under the table dealing going on there.

Here's some great photos from USS Wasp, of the RN-RAF crews getting to grips with their new airplanes.






The glamor boys / pilots get all the attention ... but the maintenance crews are on board USS Wasp too, finding out about how this airplane measures up on board at sea. They seem to be giving this airplane the thumbs up (although it's a Royal Navy website, they'd hardly criticize their new airplanes in public I guess).

While most of the media focus was on what was happening in the skies, equally-important lessons were being learned in the hangar courtesy of a maintenance team headed by Lt Cdr Robin ‘RTB’ Trewinnard-Boyle.

“To get up close and personal with the jet operating on board the Wasp was the highlight of my Royal Navy career,”

said avionics expert POAET(AV) Paul Cummings.

“This aircraft is awe inspiring and will definitely impress when it eventually operates from the UK, being a real asset for our defence for a great many years to come.”

He was one of two RN senior ratings – the other was POAET(M) ‘Ronnie’ Corbett – and an RAF armourer, Sergeant Paul Parkinson, who joined Lt Cdr Trewinnard-Boyle on the Wasp.

They not only carried out maintenance work on the two F35Bs embarked, but tested loading and unloading dummy weapons in its internal bomb bays (for stealth reasons unlike the Harrier, all the weapons are carried inside the aircraft, rather than slung on pylons beneath the wings).

"From a maintainer’s viewpoint, some things we learnt directly were how easy it is to manoeuvre the F35B around a relatively small flight deck, and how we can best do our job of launching, recovering and maintaining the F35B at sea,”

explained Lt Cdr Trewinnard-Boyle.

The officer says 'exciting times lie ahead' with further testing – including launching the jet from a ski ramp erected at the airbase.

F35 Lightning Trials / Navy News

A picture today from Rosyth dockyards. Some Brit navy guys are getting shown round the yard.
You can see HMS Queen Elizabeth is slowing changing color, she's going beige as the undercoats are painted on.
You can see also the start of the skijump taking ship too.
OK not a brilliant picture I admit but hey it's better than nothing !

Hi folks. Today the mast cap was fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth.


And coincidentally, today is the 100th anniversary of the launch of battleship HMS Queen Elizabeth, lead ship of her very famous class which performed so well in WW1 & WW2.

Concerning these types of posts on page 1 of this thread by Geemor and others of such opinion.

all right, it is always so discouraging to see people drooling over these monstrous killing machines. yay to the aircraft fleets that can takeoff and land to these carriers after they have bombed some terrorists and civilians. does britain (or any other country) need these kinds of stuff? who is going to attack them? or are they perhaps build for attack purposes?

i gonna lol when i see one of these or other carriers that have costs millions of people's money to sink just because they collide with the tanker when docking. or one of those planes accidentally explode under deck sinking the whole crap. why do you people support building these things? honestly?

I am given to ask myself that same question particularly when an event like the Tsunami in Burma happened years ago..if these people were happy that someone had such a platform off which to bring aid. Same thing with the people in Haiti.

I am not sure that the drama queens on here ever think that kind of thing through to conclusion. I also submit to the readers here ...that in spite of the fears and insecurities of so many television and movie watchers...those with a television and movie education in media/tabloid fears and insecurities...but in the future...many of these types of platforms are going to be used in more and more of these humanitarian efforts.
We are already seeing that.

Many of the people in my working crew...are ex US Navy. When the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) went to Haiti with its compliment of Helicopters, medical people..engineers etc etc...these retired sailors with whom I was working were not at all surprised at what they read and heard of the conditions and arrangements on the carrier for crews and equipments. They had themselves done the same thing and some of them under even more hurried conditions. They did not seem surprised at the news reports at all. Replenishment under way..stores...taking on fuel...under way...and a host of other seaborn tasks were all still fresh in their minds and the disciplines which accompany such...though many years had transpired since their days as a sailor and in uniform. Some of them had actually served on the Carl Vinson as well as on submarines, small boys and other naval vessels.

Training for the harsh conditions of combat...also is training for humanitarian efforts as well. People who know the hardships and dangers of combat ..a relief effort is a welcome and more satisfying/rewarding endeavour...even in its own difficulties. To render help aid to a disaster struck people ...

Few organizations are better suited to move huge stocks of men and materials under harsh conditions than a Navy. This includes hospital ships as well as resupply ships...fuelers/Oilers et al.

And many of these skills/disciplines learned at young ages in Military service are translatable over to the civilian market..particularly the ability to stand long watches....through the night. To solve mechanical as well as electrical problems. Medical situations...emergency power distribution..et al. The drive, diciplines and just plain gumption to go the distance. Teamwork skills and disciplines.

I was proud to see the Carl Vinson serving in a Humanitarian Role...as I had been involved in her overhaul.
It was very satisfying to see such a ship in a relief/Humanitarian role.



As to who is going to attack the UK....I think history has already replied to that question both in the UK and here in the States.
For I know of the Zepplin attacks of WW1 on the UK...even the Spanish Armada..in the times of Elizabeth 1st.

I am often given to ask what some people out here are thinking.

Not all of us out here are or have been raised on a television or movie education....Disneyland. The perfect utopia.

Hollywood!!! Hollywood!!!! Hollywood!!!

Rubbish.

Some of us know the lessons of history...from our fathers and grandfathers times. We have been told..not by movies and television and tabloid news accounts..but from their very lips...what they personally had seen and know.

To these posters of the caliber of Geemor and others..suggest strongly that you read some history..for history herself is replete with reasons nations and peoples choose to arm themselves...from stone age carvings to modern writings. Many of the readers here on these threads are also historians...with long memories and ability to research what they do not know or concerning what they desire to learn.




To my cousins in the Uk...sorry for the rant but it needed to be said. No lightweights need apply...especially when the going gets rough. We want with us men and women of proper caliber.


Keep building...Smooth Sailing...May the Wind be at your back.



Orangetom

A further comment concerning this business of "super carriers" which seemed want to surface in threads like this one .

I would not get all worked up over if a carrier is a 'super carrier or not. Nor this rubbish about who unzips to see who has the biggest one. Pardon the crudity.

Nations build the carrier or fleets they can afford. The issue of importance is ..

Can your Navy function well with the equipment they can afford?? Are your people able to get the most out of your ships and out at sea??

How well are your crews trained?? How well are they trained to function with your allies??

Some ex sailors confirmed this in the Sea Wolf verses the Virginia class submarine thread. You can have a uber modern submarine but if your crews are junk..so too is your ship/boat. If not you can be bested by a better trained crew in an older ship or boat who do not have all the bells and whistles.

Surface ships are no different. It is my belief that this talk about super carriers is way over rated. The question to me is how good are the crews. Those sailors are spot on in their assessment.

Thanks,
Orangetom

This warship class became interesting to me with the possibility that a third, stretched ship was to be built for the Marine Nationale. But France hasn't the money to build it, well that's not quite true, we do have the money but choose to spend it on other things. That plus I don't think France needs a carrier of this size.

And ... controversial ... I don't think UK needs 2 carriers of this size either. I think the British Royal Navy will be really unbalanced with the arrival of these ships, chronically deficient in frigates, destroyers & even submarines. I think for the British Royal Navy that these ships are too big, I think they should have been cats & traps, I think the principal airplane choice F35-B was just wrong too.

I think the Brits should've gone for 3 Wasp or America class ships. And maybe not even have bothered with Ocean, Albion & Bulwark.

Having said that, the Lancaster House agreements mean the Marine Nationale and the British Royal Navy now work extremely closely in the defense of our home waters and further afield. That means the French Navy can provide the escorts with the Brits providing the carriers. It would have been a joy to see Rafale M's flying off from these ships & their French sister, sadly that will never be.

I think to address Orangetoms point, here's my (fairly liberal) continental European perspective. Our days of empire are long gone. Apart from a few insignificant possessions, the colonial outposts are no more. I can't see the virtue in us projecting power so far from our shores for the sake of defending some palm tree'd Pacific islands, or some frozen Sud Atlantique lumps of volcano rubble. I think the remaining French & British colonial possessions should be disposed of, cast free of their colonial yoke, whether they want it or not. Just my humble opinion, though.

As to these carriers, I can't really see what their purpose is. Unless it's to pick up some slack to cover the Atlantique as the USA withdraws to concentrate more on the Pacific. Maybe then they can be justified, ever so slightly.

Oh. That's me well out of the closet now.

Kumbaya !

Here's a link to the Aircraft Carrier Alliance build progress newsletter, October 2013.
It's a PDF document, very interesting & quite techy ... if you're into the nuts & bolts you'll enjoy reading it!

www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk...

Nice new picture of HMS Queen Elizabeth in her dock.

The price for this warship project seems to have rocketed overnight by quite unbelievable proportions ... by another £800 million, bringing the total to over £6 billion. There's also the possibility the price will rise even further. How can a project be so badly mismanaged ? That's a question the Public Accounts Committee of the lower house of the British Parliament is going to be asking in their 4th investigation of this project.

www.theguardian.com...

The price tag for the navy's new aircraft carriers is expected to top more than £6bn as the government prepares to announce further cost overruns, according to reports.

The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, is expected to announce that the projected cost of the two carriers – which will not enter service until the end of the decade – has risen by a further £800m to £6.2bn, the Financial Times reports.

The latest increase means the bill for the 65,000-tonne ships will be almost double the £3.5bn estimated when the project was agreed by the Labour government in 2007.

Hammond is expected to attempt to deflect concerns about the rising costs by announcing that he has renegotiated the project to build the carriers on terms more favourable to the taxpayer.

According to the Financial Times, he is expected to say that further cost overruns beyond the new £6.2bn baseline will be split 50-50 between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the contractors – whereas previously they had fallen mainly on the government.

An MoD spokesman said: "Negotiations between the MoD and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance regarding the re-baselining of the Queen Elizabeth Carrier Programme are at an advanced stage.

"No final decisions have been taken and the department will make an announcement in due course."

The cost increase is the latest setback for the troubled carrier programme. The coalition announced in the 2010 strategic defence and security review that it intended to switch from the jump-jet version of the US-built joint strike fighter planned under Labour to the more capable carrier variant.

reply to post by LeBombDiggity

How can a project be so badly mismanaged ?

Possibly because the obsession with generating gross amounts of profit is endemic within UK manufacturing - everyone views a government contract as a bit of a cash cow and an opportunity to make a financial killing.
When allied with a resistence to positive change and increased efficiency of most processes it leads to increased costs and at times late completion.

The quality of the actual workmanship can not be questioned and is generally recognised as second to none.

reply to post by Freeborn


Contractors are hardly blameless but they are by no means the only reason things cost more than they should. Dont underestimate the cost of indecision, u-turns and requirements creep. If you produce a system requirement and contract properly against it contractors will usually deliver because they will lose if they don't.

-When you introduce requirement changes costs go up.
-When you delay decisions and have study after study, costs go up (it costs to staff a project even when its on hold, if you sack them it costs even more on restart).
-When you run a competition, select a winner and then force the competitors into an alliance to avoid having an industrial loser then costs go up.

The politicians that direct these projects are nearly always incompetent on the matters (defence is always a stepping stone to elsewhere and they have little interest) and given the political dimension (jobs, big ticket cost) to them they are unwilling to leave well enough alone.

Most of the money paid for those two British carriers will be recovered in the form of tax, personal income tax, and tax on the profits, British workers pay 43% of their earning in tax of what sort or another, all the businesses that supply parts pay tax on profits, the supply firms workers pay tax on their earnings, the gas in the workers cars that get them to work is taxed, the British government will get most of that money back!

I have a question which peaks my curiosity it may be simple for others

But this twin mast/tower design is there not any cons to having it. Like and increases radar signature.

Also does it have any pros to the design ?

reply to post by ThePeaceMaker


I read that the two island configuration did two things... Firstly, it improves resilience and redundancy, so if one island is hit then all is not lost. Secondly, the ducting for the engines required big intakes and having two was part of the deal???

Lastly, just to state that the RN is the pioneer with aircraft carriers, so expect everyone will follow this design... Where the Brits go, everyone follows... catapults, optical landing systems, angled deck, ski jump, etc

Regards

reply to post by paraphi


Thanks paraphi i did think of that first point you said, if one tower goes they haven't lost everything. I was just curious .. I do love the design though is does look pretty neat

Did we (I've assumed you are in the uk) invent the ejector seat too ?

reply to post by LeBombDiggity


what is a measly 6 billion really wait until the bill for the hs2 [ railway] you have the gtv in france lebombdiggity we will have a farce £ 42 billion already is beeing quoted like every thing the goverment does it ends up costing the taxpayers double .

but the money men who loan the goverment money from pension funds will have a good xmas

reply to post by geobro


Well it's the TGV we have in France.
But, trust me, French provincial railways are every bit as crap as their UK equivalent. Only thing is they're cheap and you have the freedom to wake up one day and go somewhere, without worrying about how to pay for it.

ANYWAY !
November's programme update PDF is out. Explains in considerable detail what's been happening with these two new ships over the last few weeks. One minor accident, a guy cut his hand assembling a unit for HMS Prince of Wales. Love that so much care is spent on Health & Safety for the workforce.

www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk...

For those outside UK, there's been bad news this week. Portsmouth shipyard in England is closing, with the loss of 1,000 jobs. That means England won't have any naval yards left for surface ship construction. Scotstoun & Govan yards on the Clyde in Scotland are losing 850 jobs but will both stay open (they're on opposite banks of the river from each other). They'll be the sole naval shipyards left in UK (for surface ship manufacture). The MoD have announced some patrol craft orders this week, which the Scottish yards will get, plus they'll get the Type 23 Destroyer orders once all the aircraft carrier work has moved on to Rosyth.

It's a controversial decision, set against the Scottish referendum for independence next year.

Just to clear something up LeBomb..

Last i heard was Portsmouth will stop the Building of ships, but have a 25 year refit order in place, Govan has a 5 year Build order...after that??...well, it's all about the lowest bidder now, Maybe we shouldn't have farmed out the other 4 ships to Korea that we dont hear much about..

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Well, that's a good point. The Clyde yards have HMS Prince of Wales to finish off, some patrol craft plus thirteen Type 26 destroyers to build. That'll keep them going into the early 2020's. They might get some overseas orders for the Type 26, although competition is fierce. The Type 45's will need kit added to them as older destroyers are decommissioned, whether that work will go to Portsmouth during regular refits or to the Clyde as a special measure I don't know.

There does seem to be a yawning gap in the order books during the 2020's on the Clyde ...