Posted on 07/05/2008 5:03:40 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Aircraft carriers: plane sailing
Britain is paying a high price, but not too high
If diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means, and if the art of diplomacy is to speak softly and carry a big stick, then no stick comes much bigger, or looks more intimidating, than a 65,000-tonne aircraft carrier. Except maybe two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers. The tricky part of the equation is that big sticks do not come cheap.
The Government has signed a contract for two 65,000-tonne supercarriers for the Royal Navy. As big sticks go, these are the second-biggest of their kind. Only America's Nimitz class aircraft carriers come bigger.
Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, the First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff, called the order “a proud moment for the Royal Navy and a proud moment for Britain”. It would be understandable if many were wondering if it was also a sensible moment, both for the Navy and for Britain.
The cost of the two carriers is £3.9 billion. The jump-jet-style Joint Strike Fighters with which the two warships will be furnished will add £12 billion to the bill. Is this the smartest use of money from an already strained defence budget? Especially when we cannot be sure that the conflicts that may beset the world when HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales start patrolling the oceans will even be the sort that will need the support of aircraft carriers?
Are what Admiral Band calls “big-ticket” items even conscionable when Britain's Armed Forces are so stretched? The Army remains about 3,500 below strength. Servicemen can find themselves in battle with inadequate equipment. They sleep too often in dilapidated barracks.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
No arresting cables, either. It uses Short Takeoff/Vertical Landing aircraft. You don't need an angled deck for that.
By the time these two are launched and operational, will Britain have any escorts left to serve with them?
Yeah, but they'll have no missiles
And will there be any Englishmen left to sail them?
In fact, I think the United States does not have enough aircraft carriers and we aren't building them fast enough to even maintain what we have.
We should have at least 32 aircraft carrier groups with no more than eight of them in for maintenance at any one time with the remaining 24 actively plying the seas of the globe at all times.
Also interesting, the 2 tower stack versus the USN (and older Brit) single tower stack. I’m sure there are logical reasons but the single tower made for more room on the flight deck. The design does look ‘clean’ though, I wonder if it is to reduce (somewhat) the enormous radar shadow the standard current carriers have.
How about a dozen 100,000 ton aircraft carriers?
The author has reversed this famous dictum. Clausewitz stated that "war is a continuation of diplomacy by other means."
Are these oil burners or nuclear ?
How many more escorts would be required for a dozen pocket aircraft carriers.
>hmm, no angled (10 deg. left) deck?<
But it will have foot baths and numerous compasses denoting the direction to Mecca. Alcohol will not be permitted anywhere on board and pork will not be served in the galley.
>>How many more escorts would be required for a dozen pocket aircraft carriers.
Depends on the carrier’s speed. I served on USS Princeton, a WWII carrier. When the Marines took her over, we stripped her down for max speed. I was on board when we ran 30 knots for 7 straight days, rendevousing in mid-ocean with USS Hancock and transferring HMX-1(Presidential choppers). In 1961, futher weight reductions got max speed up to 33 knots.
At that speed and duration, only ballistic submarinesive can keep up. I don’t kmow that are any surface escorts that can keep up.
I was on board when we ran 30 knots for 7 straight days, rendevousing in mid-ocean with USS Hancock and transferring HMX-1(Presidential choppers).
That is MOVING!!
No conventionally powered escort could do that, not enough fuel onboard for that kind of run. And the oilers and ammo ships would be 3 days behind so no chance of refueling or rearming. A carrier battle group is really only as fast as it’s JP5 and bombs for ops that would last more than a few days.
Jack
oh. *smack to forehead* Duh!....sorry, I haven't had my morning coffee....my excuse for now ...well, @ least I admit it
These will be the F-35B — the STOVL version. I think there was a plan to look at catapaults & arresting gear at some future SLEP — that would allow the F-35C, or any other naval strike fighter for that matter.
We don’t even have port facilities for that many... but that’s another problem.
Buddy of mine served on Knox-class frigates. When they were cruising in the “lifeguard” position (in the wake of the carrier to pickup downed airmen) they were going b*lls-out & couldn’t maintain the pace for more than a short period. When the carriers turn into the wind they are going flat-out.
The argument in Britain would be whether they would ever be going to war without the US. If the US supplies the big-deck carriers, they why would you need to supply a less-capable version of same? Why not just build more Ocean-class helicopter carriers so that you can contribute a separate Marine MEU?
The fact that they have made the decision to buy carriers tells me that the Brits think they still need the capability to go it alone. Wonder what they're looking at? Falklands II?
>what, no (British navy :) grog!.<
That would be insulting and offensive to their shipmates, the floating rugriders who believe in Moohammed.
The Marine Corps took command of a U.S. Navy carrier?
>>The Marine Corps took command of a U.S. Navy carrier?
The Marines bought the Princeton and the Boxer for $1 each and converted them to amphibious assault ship. We let the Navy do the driving and we ran half the ship. Princeton had 550 Marines and Boxer had 500 as part of ship’s company. Carriers that size had crews of 2400 + squadrons. Princeton had a crew of 1100!
Something about your story doesn’t sound correct. Why would the U.S.Navy sell anything to itself since the Corps is a division of the U.S.Navy?
Furthermore, why would the Corps assume the budget hit for the maintenance and operational costs of any vessel when the Navy provides the ships needed for Marine operations?
Me thinks a sea story is afoot.
Knox class 27 Knots by the book, some were able to hit 30 in cold water with a clean bottom and just out of overhaul. Combustion Engineering (CE) seemed to get better performance than Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) boilers.
Jack
Why not 64 since you're indulging in fantasies? We didn't have 32 fleet carriers in World War II.
Conventional. Gas turbine most likely.
Pretty much what my buddy told me. He began his career as a boiler tech on an Adams-class destroyer. Moved over to the Knox (class) on a later posting.
At least one of these carriers will be sent to the bottom by the USN in the next 30 years.
They will be part of an EU navy in the next 15.
One is the for ship handling the bridge should be forward, For controlling flight operations the station should be aft.
This is no sea story. In 1959, Princeton was scheduled for decommissioning. The Marine Corps had an idea to test - vertical envelopment - the use of helicopters to land marines BEHIND enemy lines tinstead of storming the beaches. Viola, an agreement is reached. Marines supply half the crew; Navy supplies the other half. Removing unneeded equipment and crews cuts another 1100 men. No catapult crews & maintenance, all anti-aircraft and single mount 5” removed, no arresting gear and crews and you have an arrangement. Split the crews, split the cost, etc.
BTW, the Corps dod this because the Navy would or could not provide the service. And the Corps is NOT a division of the Navy; it agrees to let the Navy fit diplomatic battles in Congress, while the Marines do the REAL fighting.
Semper fi
Afraid it is. Amphibious assault ships were planned before the Princeton was converted in 1959. The first of the built-from-the-keel-up LPHs, the Iwo Jima, was laid down about that time, and the Boxer had been operated as an LPH as early as 1957.
I stand by my story. Vertical envelopment was a theory that had not been tested when Princeton & Boxer were converted. Iwo Jima may have been the first from the keel up, but as late as March 1960, test data was still being evaluated.
The first operation was as f’ed up as Hogan’s goat. Launching helos in a 60 knoe wind wasn’t the smartest thing to do, the first three mules carried in wound up in the South China Sea and a Marine Lt. Col wound with a broken leg when a jeep flipped over on him.
Eh...the US navy may be 'dry' - the Royal Navy is not.
Splice the mainbrace!
Boxer only began gonversion in Jan 59, a few months before Princtenom.
You may be thinking of USS Thetis Bay, a Casablanca class CVE converted to a CVHA (reclasseds as LPH in 1959) between 1955 and 1957.
Vertical envelopment was a theory that had not been tested when Princeton & Boxer were converted.
Er 1956 Operation Musketeer, The Brit operation at Suez, Helicopters from HMS Thesus and HMS Ocean landed and resupplied Royal Marine 45 Commando Battalion into Part Said
The illustration has an aircraft in what appears to be a catapult position with thrust deflectors raised behind it and an apparent catapult track leading it. However, as we all know, this is an illustration and not reality. I was basing my guess on this appearance.
Its a pity these new flat tops are not nuclear powered. Yeah, I know the light distillate for turbines burns clean but its still a signature they don’t need.
Sorry, but the Corps is a division of the United States Navy.
Even STO carriers need a spot where the aircraft can run the engines up full power before launch, hence the blast deflectors.
And the "apparent catapult track" is a painted line to tell the aircraft meatware the direction to follow.
But she operated briefly as an assault ship in 1957, testing the concept. At the time she was still classifies a CVS.
Wait until the rugriders say they are offended and it’ll go dry in a hurry. Building another prayer room on the aft deck won’t satisfy them or Allah.
Sorry to offend your "stick it to the Brits" attitude.
>The Royal Navy, which has a history of several hundred years, is not subject to the whims and fancies of current political trends.
Sorry to offend your “stick it to the Brits” attitude.<
Me, “stick it to the Brits” ? Have you seen what’s happened to England lately thanks to these rugriders? You folks have stuck it to yourself much better than I could.
But do feel free to jump on any thread and enjoy your Brit bashing.
Good day to you, sir.
Report: Schoolboys Get Detention for Refusing to Pray to Allah
Boys Punished With Detention For Refusing to Pray to Allah (UK)
Schoolboys Disciplined For 'Refusing To Pray To Allah'
Schoolboys punished with detention for refusing to kneel in class and pray to Allah
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.