Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Meriv9]

How much is the difference in operational cost between a QEC and the will be LHD. Since regardless of the gap you would still have the QE how much is the true cost of the gap? Is it significant?

Any guesses?

[Opinion3]

Re LHP / Strike role

I rather feel that the number of helicopters using up spots / embarked and operated from the CVF in strike role looks too high. The numbers for AEW alone sound like they will get in the way of high tempo operations in a non-permissive environment. In practice would a at war carrier not also find requests to embark chinook and ASW / SAR helicopters for operations as well?

Maybe there is someone out there who knows the answers, but to me having a CVF as a LHP is a fantasy political idea that CAN work provided there is no need to disembark large numbers of troops WITH their materials. A split function use also can work, but I am struggling to see how a high tempo strike operation gets fleet protection with helicopters and jets fighting for the same space.

[shark bait]

You're correct. It's my math that needs checking.

However, given your scenario, your two F-35 would need to be half empty to accept the fuel. In other words, 450 miles or so from the carrier. What makes you think an Osprey can fly 450 miles, deliver 13,000 lbs of fuel and return?

True. I had never thought about it hard enough to consider the range of the tanker.

A quick google returned nothing conclusive on the V22 payload/range performance, but it looks like flying 200 miles full and then 200 miles empty within its capabilities.

Adding 200 miles reach to the carrier group would be quite valuable, it certainly looks like a good future growth path for the RN as it begins to mature its carrier ops in a decade or so. In the meantime I guess they will evaluate the capability with our USMC friends, our naval aviators need to be best buddy's with those guys!

[shark bait]

Again, I see no problem with using 2nd carrier for LPH role. What is only lacking is the 3rd flat top, which could be a simple LPH. In this case, there will be Bay replacements to come. I prefer this way.

This option has its advantages, a big LPH like your navy has could slot in quite nicely, allays guaranteeing one platform available for fixed wing ops, and one platform available for rotary wing ops.

The well docks are then provided from the RFA.

Feels like a strong budget option.

[Jake1992]

Again, I see no problem with using 2nd carrier for LPH role. What is only lacking is the 3rd flat top, which could be a simple LPH. In this case, there will be Bay replacements to come. I prefer this way.

This option has its advantages, a big LPH like your navy has could slot in quite nicely, allays guaranteeing one platform available for fixed wing ops, and one platform available for rotary wing ops.

The well docks are then provided from the RFA.

Feels like a strong budget option.

In the short term yes there is no budget for additional flat tops, but people are act as if there never will be any budget or very very little at the most. Come the late 2020s the replacement for the Albions will have to start, now replacing to large LPDs would require a decent pot of cash ( around the £2bn odd mark ).

As Iv said before that funding will be there as needs dictate it they will be the next big project after the QEs. The question is what route of replacement do we take, 2 large LPDs for a like for like, 2 LPHs or 1 very large LPH, or 2 LHDs these are the options.

Getting rid of the Albions for 1 LPH in the long run to me seem complety daft, even if we got a fourth bay that would still mean our LCU heavy transport capablity is cut by two thirds a massive reduction by any count.

To me the only logical route at that time will be to go the LHDs route, combining the ocean and Albion roll in to one and relieving the QEs to become dedicated strike carrier.
A £2bn budget might be tight but I believe the slight extra could be found at the time, considering the Italians have designed and are build a large LHD for €1.1bn that is something like we would need

[R686]

my belief is the RN not only has a budget problem which can be sorted out by the government, but the main problem I can see is long term active member numbers. from my perspective this is of more importance then budget. for this reason alone is why I believe an LHD will get up and not an LPD, the RN needs the flexibility at the same time reduce its crewing footprint.

[Zealot]

my belief is the RN not only has a budget problem which can be sorted out by the government, but the main problem I can see is long term active member numbers. from my perspective this is of more importance then budget. for this reason alone is why I believe an LHD will get up and not an LPD, the RN needs the flexibility at the same time reduce its crewing footprint.

One problem you seem to be ignoring is that the reason we have manning issues is due to too many redundancies... Because of the budget. We simply can not increase personnel numbers without increasing the budget. Unfortunately no government seems to be interested in doing so.

[Repulse]

Getting rid of the Albions for 1 LPH in the long run to me seem complety daft, even if we got a fourth bay that would still mean our LCU heavy transport capablity is cut by two thirds a massive reduction by any count.

It depends if the RN will seriously take on OTH amphibious assault approach and at what scale. What is for sure, the UK cannot do opposed amphibious landings with what it has, especially due to the lack of Frigates to cover an ARG separate from the CBG.

Change the strategy then to me a large 3rd flat-top makes perfect sense.

[R686]

One problem you seem to be ignoring is that the reason we have manning issues is due to too many redundancies... Because of the budget. We simply can not increase personnel numbers without increasing the budget. Unfortunately no government seems to be interested in doing so.

didn't they go on a small recruitment drive? that's increasing the budget alone spending more in wages will have a flow on effect on the overall budget long term hence the need for more flexible vessels. its simplistic to say but harder to manage.

[shark bait]

As Iv said before that funding will be there as needs dictate

For real? I have seen nothing that agrees with that, its the other way round, needs are dictated by what little money the government has.

With SSBN's, Frigates and minehunters to build, plus the Astute to life extend there is not much money left for more carriers.

[Zealot]

One problem you seem to be ignoring is that the reason we have manning issues is due to too many redundancies... Because of the budget. We simply can not increase personnel numbers without increasing the budget. Unfortunately no government seems to be interested in doing so.

didn't they go on a small recruitment drive?

Yeah, they had set a target to recruit 3,571 new sailors; they only achieved 2,980. Its a start, but how many left in the same year? The Royal Navy are still short by a thousand and that number wont stop increasing. Hell we had to fire 200 Royal Marines in favor of 200 Sailors to man the carriers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Hell we had to fire 200 Royal Marines in favor of 200 Sailors to man the carriers.

That is the third "tranche" in the additions of billets: the SDSR had the first two
- some fresh additions
- some converted from officers to crew (not sure if there is any saving in the long run as the share of very technical trades in the overall total is continuously creeping up)

[Jake1992]

Getting rid of the Albions for 1 LPH in the long run to me seem complety daft, even if we got a fourth bay that would still mean our LCU heavy transport capablity is cut by two thirds a massive reduction by any count.

It depends if the RN will seriously take on OTH amphibious assault approach and at what scale. What is for sure, the UK cannot do opposed amphibious landings with what it has, especially due to the lack of Frigates to cover an ARG separate from the CBG.

Change the strategy then to me a large 3rd flat-top makes perfect sense.

OTH is just not practical even the US with their enormous vertical lift capabilities have stated the the mile per tone cost for OTH just doesn't make it work, so for the RN with its depleted vertical lift capacity would struggle even more. For what Iv read and seen the only logical reason for surgesting it is due to the fact that we are having to use the QEs in the amphibious role thuse having to push them further out.

As Iv said before that funding will be there as needs dictate

For real? I have seen nothing that agrees with that, its the other way round, needs are dictated by what little money the government has.

With SSBN's, Frigates and minehunters to build, plus the Astute to life extend there is not much money left for more carriers.

You doubt that there will be money made avalible for the Albion replacement due to the fact you havnt herd anything on it yet. That will be beacuse that descustion will be 8-10 years away yet. Yes the SSNs the Dreadnoroughts and the Frigates go on in to the 2030s but they're programs have already started or are about to very soon that is why they are talked about and there budget.
The Albion and bays OSD is around the mid 2030s so why would the RN or HMG even talk about budgets for them yet, when there are more pressing projects at the moment.
They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025

Also in this instance we are not really talking about more carriers for me the logical path is for 2 LHDs, these yes look like carriers and "if fix wing capable" can act as them for short times, but what they will really be doing is the Albions role of today with a very large aviation capability, this in turn will allow our real carriers the QEs to act as such and not need to be swing role

[RNFollower]

OK, so no more calling choppers helos then. lol

Quite partial to the term "Wurly birds" myself

[R686]

You doubt that there will be money made avalible for the Albion replacement due to the fact you havnt herd anything on it yet. That will be beacuse that descustion will be 8-10 years away yet. Yes the SSNs the Dreadnoroughts and the Frigates go on in to the 2030s but they're programs have already started or are about to very soon that is why they are talked about and there budget.
The Albion and bays OSD is around the mid 2030s so why would the RN or HMG even talk about budgets for them yet, when there are more pressing projects at the moment.
They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025.

yep agree with that with one provision, that the manpower shortage situation doesn't get any worse. ships in extended readiness don't become paid off surplus to requirements. sorry to say but the powers to be need a wake up call in regards to the RN

Also in this instance we are not really talking about more carriers for me the logical path is for 2 LHDs, these yes look like carriers and "if fix wing capable" can act as them for short times, but what they will really be doing is the Albions role of today with a very large aviation capability, this in turn will allow our real carriers the QEs to act as such and not need to be swing role

that's where having the correct terminology is important, to joe public anything with a flat deck is a aircraft carrier but here a carrier is a carrier and an LHD is a LHD

[WhitestElephant]

that's where having the correct terminology is important, to joe public anything with a flat deck is a aircraft carrier but here a carrier is a carrier and an LHD is a LHD

Call it a commando carrier, and Joe public will understand, politicians will understand.

[Jake1992]

You doubt that there will be money made avalible for the Albion replacement due to the fact you havnt herd anything on it yet. That will be beacuse that descustion will be 8-10 years away yet. Yes the SSNs the Dreadnoroughts and the Frigates go on in to the 2030s but they're programs have already started or are about to very soon that is why they are talked about and there budget.
The Albion and bays OSD is around the mid 2030s so why would the RN or HMG even talk about budgets for them yet, when there are more pressing projects at the moment.
They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025.

yep agree with that with one provision, that the manpower shortage situation doesn't get any worse. ships in extended readiness don't become paid off surplus to requirements. sorry to say but the powers to be need a wake up call in regards to the RN

Also in this instance we are not really talking about more carriers for me the logical path is for 2 LHDs, these yes look like carriers and "if fix wing capable" can act as them for short times, but what they will really be doing is the Albions role of today with a very large aviation capability, this in turn will allow our real carriers the QEs to act as such and not need to be swing role

that's where having the correct terminology is important, to joe public anything with a flat deck is a aircraft carrier but here a carrier is a carrier and an LHD is a LHD

Couldn't agree with you more, the man power issue is going to be the defining fact or for the RN over the coming years, hoprfully by the time the Albions are up these issues will be sorted.

Yes the terminology is very important and does need to be made vitally clear to everyone, I'd say the politiains more than joe public of what these vessels will be.

With regards the the politians on all sides need a good kickin to wake them with with regards to the RN, this is where I belive all of the top brass need to stop worrying about their pentions and start lay it out clear to every politians of the true state our armed forces are in

[ArmChairCivvy]

They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025

The EP is confirmed every year, but any switching of the total level of jit & support spend is normally contingent on an SDSR, which in their turn do not have a fixed cycle, but are rather driven by "during this Parliament" type of statements of intent

Call it a commando carrier, and Joe public will understand, politicians will understand.

A good one. We could spice it up by stating that a single one (HMS Bulwark) managed to do what later took a UK division... supported by umpteen US ones
- so clearly we need some today, too

[PhillyJ]

One problem you seem to be ignoring is that the reason we have manning issues is due to too many redundancies... Because of the budget. We simply can not increase personnel numbers without increasing the budget. Unfortunately no government seems to be interested in doing so.

Having just gone through the recruitment phase with my now 18 yr old Son, I can honestly say that were it not for his dedication to join up (and our constant proddings) then he would have given up. Since the medical side of entry has been outsourced to Capita I've heard nothing but bad stories. Our personal experience has included him being told on his first test that he was underweight by 3-6 lbs, on his second test they found his weight was fine and congratulations you're in the RN, only for an email to arrive 2 days later where apparently the hearing test had been 'forgotten' or lost so not passed through from the first test, that was retest number 3. Did I mention they get approx £100 for every correspondence/retest

Thankfully, and finally, he has now got his date to go to HMS Raleigh in January 2017 (oops meant 2018) where he will undergo 9-10 weeks of training. We started this process in January 2016, I wonder how many also get knocked back and think sod it.

[RAF>FAN]

If he goes to HMS Raleigh in January 2017 he better get a move on......he's 8 months late

But good luck to him. If he stays the course I hop he has a great career in THE BEST Navy in the world. I myself was all set to join the Navy 35 years ago but even then it was a complicated process. So much so that I gave up and have regretted it ever since.

[PhillyJ]

If he goes to HMS Raleigh in January 2017 he better get a move on......he's 8 months late

Cheers and well done for spotting my typo! I have amended it to 2018!

[donald_of_tokyo]

OTH is just not practical even the US with their enormous vertical lift capabilities have stated the the mile per tone cost for OTH just doesn't make it work, so for the RN with its depleted vertical lift capacity would struggle even more. For what Iv read and seen the only logical reason for surgesting it is due to the fact that we are having to use the QEs in the amphibious role thuse having to push them further out.

With 2 CV + 1 LPH, supported by 4-6 Bay replacements, all problems you pointed out is solved.

The Albion and bays OSD is around the mid 2030s so why would the RN or HMG even talk about budgets for them yet, when there are more pressing projects at the moment.
They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025

As I've stated a few months ago, 2 LHD approach itself is good, but it really really risks Bay replacement.

Now RN needs to replace 13 T23. They planned to do it with 13 global combat ships = T26, which is actually much much capable than T23. But, RN is not funded enough to do it now.

Your proposal is to replace 1 active and 1 reserve LPDs with 2 big LHDs, as well as replacing 3 Bays with 3 alike. (Ocean is already replaced by PoW). Expecting that the 3 Bays will all disappear as a result of resource shortage, is just realistic, I think. Not at all pessimistic. If pessimistic, I even fear one of the two LHD will be mothballed, as they do it now with Albions.

If RN go with 1 LPH and Bay replacements, if optimistic, we will have 6 Bay replacements. If realistic, 4. This is my assumption. Yes the LCU capability will be reduced, but part of it can be supplemented by carrying 4-5 Chinooks on the 2nd CV or LPH, and adding mexefloats to Points.

Anyway this is CV thread, and as a conclusion, I will just repeat, using the 2nd CV for LPH role is reasonable. What is lacking is the 3rd flat top, a LPH.

P.S. RN has replaced 2 active + 1 reserve 20000t CVS and one 20000t LPH with two 65000t CVF. No one will say it is a decrease in investment. I will just regard it as shifting the resource more on air strike.

[Jake1992]

OTH is just not practical even the US with their enormous vertical lift capabilities have stated the the mile per tone cost for OTH just doesn't make it work, so for the RN with its depleted vertical lift capacity would struggle even more. For what Iv read and seen the only logical reason for surgesting it is due to the fact that we are having to use the QEs in the amphibious role thuse having to push them further out.

With 2 CV + 1 LPH, supported by 4-6 Bay replacements, all problems you pointed out is solved.

The Albion and bays OSD is around the mid 2030s so why would the RN or HMG even talk about budgets for them yet, when there are more pressing projects at the moment.
They will fall under the next 10 year percurment round which starts in 2025

As I've stated a few months ago, 2 LHD approach itself is good, but it really really risks Bay replacement.

Now RN needs to replace 13 T23. They planned to do it with 13 global combat ships = T26, which is actually much much capable than T23. But, RN is not funded enough to do it now.

Your proposal is to replace 1 active and 1 reserve LPDs with 2 big LHDs, as well as replacing 3 Bays with 3 alike. (Ocean is already replaced by PoW). Expecting that the 3 Bays will all disappear as a result of resource shortage, is just realistic, I think. Not at all pessimistic. If pessimistic, I even fear one of the two LHD will be mothballed, as they do it now with Albions.

If RN go with 1 LPH and Bay replacements, if optimistic, we will have 6 Bay replacements. If realistic, 4. This is my assumption. Yes the LCU capability will be reduced, but part of it can be supplemented by carrying 4-5 Chinooks on the 2nd CV or LPH, and adding mexefloats to Points.

Anyway this is CV thread, and as a conclusion, I will just repeat, using the 2nd CV for LPH role is reasonable. What is lacking is the 3rd flat top, a LPH.

P.S. RN has replaced 2 active + 1 reserve 20000t CVS and one 20000t LPH with two 65000t CVF. No one will say it is a decrease in investment. I will just regard it as shifting the resource more on air strike.

The problem with OTH isn't the platform they are flying from "the QEs" it's the drastically depleted vertical lift capability the RN has, down from around 170 helos in the early 2000s to closer to 85 now. There is also the fact of the mile per tone cost to consider, when the US navy looked in to this they judged it was far to expensive to realisticley do so how can the RN with a much smaller vertical lift change that ?
Then there is the mission tempo to consider, operating from a QE means operating from further out slowing down the whole tempo ( not a good thing )

The 2 CVs plus LPH and 4 odd bays do not solve the problems Iv pointed, chinooks can not handle heavy armour or overly heavy loads, your proposal reduces our ability in that area by two thirds leaving us with only 4 LCUs ( 6 at most )
I don't see 2 LHDs replacing the Albions as a risk to the bay's, as pointed out the funding for replacing the Albions like for like would cost close to £2bn in today market it is not unrealistic to get 2 LHDs for around that amount.
The main reason one Albion is in reserve is more due to man power shortage than funding ( this will be the critical factor in the coming years and hopefuly gets sorted )

Oceans current replacement "PoW" is not by choice more a lack of current funding and manpower. The QEs acting in this role is a obvious stop gap and not a long term plan, this can be seen by the late and rushed changes to PoW instead of being designed in from the start.

As for the QEs replacing 2 active 20,000tn CVs 1 reserve and ocean it's not so much a drop in airwing capability it the amphibious side that is losing out.
We only really has 2 cvs as the third act as an LPH, we are now trying to cram 2 very different roles in one active vessel.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks Jake1992-san for response

The problem with OTH isn't the platform they are flying from "the QEs" it's the drastically depleted vertical lift capability the RN has, down from around 170 helos in the early 2000s to closer to 85 now. There is also the fact of the mile per tone cost to consider, when the US navy looked in to this they judged it was far to expensive to realisticley do so how can the RN with a much smaller vertical lift change that ?

170 (or 85) helos cannot be carried onboard CVF, LPH nor LHD. UK has enough helicopters to fill the 2nd CVF.

Then there is the mission tempo to consider, operating from a QE means operating from further out slowing down the whole tempo ( not a good thing )

I am proposing to locate 2nd CV to exactly the place the LHD will be located, because I think both are equally "high value". This is the 1st point we differ.

The 2 CVs plus LPH and 4 odd bays do not solve the problems Iv pointed, chinooks can not handle heavy armour or overly heavy loads, your proposal reduces our ability in that area by two thirds leaving us with only 4 LCUs ( 6 at most )

This means the Bay replacement shall carry 2 LCU per hull. Not difficult, just make it 3-4 meters fatter. Then, 4 Bay replacement can provide 8 LCUs. Now with only 1 LPD and 3 Bays, RN can provide 7. No reduction.

I don't see 2 LHDs replacing the Albions as a risk to the bay's, as pointed out the funding for replacing the Albions like for like would cost close to £2bn in today market it is not unrealistic to get 2 LHDs for around that amount.
The main reason one Albion is in reserve is more due to man power shortage than funding ( this will be the critical factor in the coming years and hopefuly gets sorted )
Oceans current replacement "PoW" is not by choice more a lack of current funding and manpower. The QEs acting in this role is a obvious stop gap and not a long term plan, this can be seen by the late and rushed changes to PoW instead of being designed in from the start.

We differ in assumption here (2nd point), so coming to different conclusion is very natural. I just think RN will confront the same problem they are facing now to replace T23s. You think the future will be more easy. My point is, it is not "current" lack of funding and manpower. It is the "continuous" lack of funding and manpower, which was there from 1980s or even more earlier. We see it for nearly 4 decades (or 6 decades?), and I simply think it will continue for another decade.

As for the QEs replacing 2 active 20,000tn CVs 1 reserve and ocean it's not so much a drop in airwing capability it the amphibious side that is losing out.
We only really has 2 cvs as the third act as an LPH, we are now trying to cram 2 very different roles in one active vessel.

Two CVF coming is not "not so much a drop" in airwing capability. It is a huge, quantum leap in airwing capability. Yes, slight decrease in amphibious capability is there, I agree. Thus I said, it is the change in resource allocation.

[Jake1992]

Thanks Jake1992-san for response

The problem with OTH isn't the platform they are flying from "the QEs" it's the drastically depleted vertical lift capability the RN has, down from around 170 helos in the early 2000s to closer to 85 now. There is also the fact of the mile per tone cost to consider, when the US navy looked in to this they judged it was far to expensive to realisticley do so how can the RN with a much smaller vertical lift change that ?

170 (or 85) helos cannot be carried onboard CVF, LPH nor LHD. UK has enough helicopters to fill the 2nd CVF.

Then there is the mission tempo to consider, operating from a QE means operating from further out slowing down the whole tempo ( not a good thing )

I am proposing to locate 2nd CV to exactly the place the LHD will be located, because I think both are equally "high value". This is the 1st point we differ.

The 2 CVs plus LPH and 4 odd bays do not solve the problems Iv pointed, chinooks can not handle heavy armour or overly heavy loads, your proposal reduces our ability in that area by two thirds leaving us with only 4 LCUs ( 6 at most )

This means the Bay replacement shall carry 2 LCU per hull. Not difficult, just make it 3-4 meters fatter. Then, 4 Bay replacement can provide 8 LCUs. Now with only 1 LPD and 3 Bays, RN can provide 7. No reduction.

I don't see 2 LHDs replacing the Albions as a risk to the bay's, as pointed out the funding for replacing the Albions like for like would cost close to £2bn in today market it is not unrealistic to get 2 LHDs for around that amount.
The main reason one Albion is in reserve is more due to man power shortage than funding ( this will be the critical factor in the coming years and hopefuly gets sorted )
Oceans current replacement "PoW" is not by choice more a lack of current funding and manpower. The QEs acting in this role is a obvious stop gap and not a long term plan, this can be seen by the late and rushed changes to PoW instead of being designed in from the start.

We differ in assumption here (2nd point), so coming to different conclusion is very natural. I just think RN will confront the same problem they are facing now to replace T23s. You think the future will be more easy. My point is, it is not "current" lack of funding and manpower. It is the "continuous" lack of funding and manpower, which was there from 1980s or even more earlier. We see it for nearly 4 decades (or 6 decades?), and I simply think it will continue for another decade.

As for the QEs replacing 2 active 20,000tn CVs 1 reserve and ocean it's not so much a drop in airwing capability it the amphibious side that is losing out.
We only really has 2 cvs as the third act as an LPH, we are now trying to cram 2 very different roles in one active vessel.

Two CVF coming is not "not so much a drop" in airwing capability. It is a huge, quantum leap in airwing capability. Yes, slight decrease in amphibious capability is there, I agree. Thus I said, it is the change in resource allocation.

With the helo side of things yes we have more in total than the CVs or LDHs could opperate but you have to take in to account of helos in for maintaince, ones doing ASW or AEW the fact that 28 are only light lift wildcats and suddenly that 85 odd that the RN has drops quite a lot.

Also the amount of air craft the CVs or LHDs carry still does not solve the problems of OTH, the main one being cost per mile per tone this is the main reason even the US are not doing it.

The place of a QE in LPH role is where we differ as you say, I would not put it as close the shore as an LHD, not because I think they are any more valuable militarily but politically. I can't see be consider due to the risk of losing a fleet flag ship super carrier 1 of only 2 we have. With this being the case the operation tempo is slowed down.

I like your idea for the bay replacement but I can't see us getting more than 4 at most, you also discount the Albion in reserve but count all 4 of the bay replacement, the second Albion can be called up in times of need so over all your plan still sees a reduction in LCU heavy transport.

I am abit more optermistic over the manning issue I've the next 10-15 years only beacuse I think it's come to such a point that it's starting to shake some awake.

Yes the QEs do see us getting a big jump in fix wing capabilities but at quite s cost to the amphibious side aswell as the QEs now having to act as swing role