Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Opinion3]

@R686
I thought Ocean was a cheap solution to Argus's and the Invincible Class's unsuitability. As discovered during Yugoslavia's breakup. Did I read that somewhere.....

[Little J]

Interesting to understand the actual prop / seal / shaft issue. The engineer in me wishes investigations and solutions were of greater detail but I found it more enjoyable than last week.

Agreed

I feel a crime has been committed by not having the build filmed.

Saw a programme on Yesterday (the sky channel, not the day ), don't recall it being mentioned here... "Impossible Engineering", that was more about building the ship. Season 1 Episode 1, belive its available on catch-up

[Poiuytrewq]

Part of the justification for completing HMS POW was to maximise its amphibious support capabilities and in my view the priority must be to retain both QE carriers rather than push for a direct Ocean replacement.

Nope it's an afterthought, otherwise both carrier would have been built the same from the beginning, and without the flip-flops from STOVL-CATOBAR-STOVL amphibious assault is an afterthought.

Not sure I agree with you on that one, around the time of the 2010 SDSR the future prospects of HMS POW was unclear to say the least. In the end it was decided to push on with the build and the 2015 SDSR confirmed that POW would be brought into service but as a consequence Ocean would be decommissioned in 2018 without replacement.

I understand that a certain amount of fuel and munitions needs to carried for the initial assault but why carry lots of hazardous materials on your troop transports? It all a question of minimising risk. When the troops hit the beach why would they care what vessel the re supplies come from?

Because its the job of the SSS is to support the ground combat element after they have exhausted their initial holding untill further replenishment comes from strategic sealift or airlift after a secure POE has been established.

I agree that is exactly what has been done in the past, I am looking at how amphibious operations may be conducted in the future and taking into consideration how the RN amphibious fleet may need to adapt with the introduction of POW.

Removing the aviation element from the vessel carrying large numbers of troops reduces risk as does not combining large munitions stores and overloaded troop transports.

I agree it spreads the risk, but removing troops from organic airlift needlessly complicates operational planing. The LPD without aircraft storage and maintenance crew on hand risks that spot if the the machine goes down unexpectedly, you either push it over the side and lose a aircraft or you compromise the battle plan expending more effort recovering the aircraft and launch and recovery spot that's why multiple spot and large hanger's are so vital.

I am not suggesting removing troops from POW, of course the first wave(s) ashore are likely to come from POW but what then? The rest of the fleet doesn't have any organic airlift that troops can be removed from. Bringing troops ashore one Chinook at a time from the Albions and Bays is going to take a long time. While the first wave is awaiting reinforcement they are at there most venerable. They will only have the gear that can fit in a Chinook, not much. If the Lilly padding doctrine is fully implemented the Albions and Bays will not be landing troops via the LCVP's or the heavy equipment via the LCU's until the landing zone is completely secure so air support and NGFS will be vital. What is going to provide NGFS if the T31's aren't fitted with Mk45's and the T26's are busy escorting the fleet?

If the adapted MARS SSS vessels that I proposed in my previous posts were used and were possibly configured in a similar style to the Karel Doorman class there would be no need to push any aircraft over the side. Obviously the KD class carry solid stores and fuel, in the adapted MARS they could be replaced with PCRS facilities.

Now that the majority of the aviation capacity is going to be provided by POW how does that fit in with the rest of the amphibious fleet? Could the MARS SSS vessels provide this extra troop transportation capacity?

Isn't that defeating your purpose of seperating troops from large store of EO and fuel

My apologies, that should have been adapted MARS SSS vessels. The original MARS SSS vessels would carry on as normal. I am proposing adding 2 extra vessels to the MARS SSS order so a total of 5. One of which would replace Argus. The adapted versions would retain commonality with the original 3 but would not carry large amounts of munitions when high numbers of troops were on board. They would retain the vehicle deck possibly with a lift going down from the flight deck. They would have extensive PCRS capabilities. The hanger would probably be similar to whatever the original MARS SSS end up with but moved forward to create a flight deck with 4 or 5 landing spots. I concede a small amount of fuel would be on board for the embarked helicopters and possibly to refuel the helicopters from POW. Can you think of a safer way to get the troops that are needed to the edge of the littoral zone?

[R686]

My apologies, that should have been adapted MARS SSS vessels. The original MARS SSS vessels would carry on as normal. I am proposing adding 2 extra vessels to the MARS SSS order so a total of 5. One of which would replace Argus. The adapted versions would retain commonality with the original 3 but would not carry large amounts of munitions when high numbers of troops were on board. They would retain the vehicle deck possibly with a lift going down from the flight deck. They would have extensive PCRS capabilities. The hanger would probably be similar to whatever the original MARS SSS end up with but moved forward to create a flight deck with 4 or 5 landing spots. I concede a small amount of fuel would be on board for the embarked helicopters and possibly to refuel the helicopters from POW. Can you think of a safer way to get the troops that are needed to the edge of the littoral zone?

Now your talking of increasing the budget for more ships, if you have the budget for aviation enhanced supply ships, you have the budget for Ocean's replacement, leaving the carriers for what they were built for, but we still need more escorts for the standing commitments and task groups.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Now that the majority of the aviation capacity is going to be provided by POW how does that fit in with the rest of the amphibious fleet? Could the MARS SSS vessels provide this extra troop transportation capacity?

A thought I have been promoting for several years. It is not a given that both carriers will be available at the same time and hence having them differently configured is a risk factor in itself - a very configurable air wing is only a partial cure
... continued under the last quote

it's an afterthought, otherwise both carrier would have been built the same from the beginning, and without the flip-flops from STOVL-CATOBAR-STOVL amphibious assault is an afterthought.

I would tend to agree, as there was some flip flopping on the order of OSDs, juggling the overall manning levels (and not losing too many specialist skills in the process, as in the below:

confirmed that POW would be brought into service but as a consequence Ocean would be decommissioned in 2018 without replacement.

so until this was clear, HMS Invincible was refitted for a v short remaining life, to get HMS Ocean extensively refitted, to cover all scenarios until the POW decision could be finalised
- this amphibiosity added to the POW design: do we know of anything material (yet)?

if you have the budget for aviation enhanced supply ships

... continuing the thought from the first quote, at the top: There should not be any"enhanced" FSSs, but they should have enough hangarage to provide a "ferry function" for troop lift helos, which
A would be deployed to the "llilly pads" possessing only helo pads (w/o hangars)
B would then be useful in ferrying supplies to the said troops (once landed), and
C for maintenance (over and above re-fuelling turn-arounds) would rely on the facilities on the carrier(s)

It is a totally separate question what the number of SSSs should be (agree with SB's 4, but also agree that a bn might be tight for getting 3). Obviously, the more you tilt their role towards also supporting troops that are already ashore, the more that puts pressure on their number (size alone is less of a remedy than it is for steaming along the CTF and keeping it supplied en-route and for a given duration of high-intensity ops)

[shark bait]

The original MARS SSS vessels would carry on as normal. I am proposing adding 2 extra vessels to the MARS SSS order so a total of 5. One of which would replace Argus.

That is similar to the original plan which called for two support vessels for carrier logistics, and three sea bases for amphibious logistics and medical care. For lack of money those two types got rolled into one.

Now your talking of increasing the budget for more ships, if you have the budget for aviation enhanced supply ships, you have the budget for Ocean's replacement, leaving the carriers for what they were built for

A very good point.

Today's plan is OK in the short term, it's a bodge, but its not like the carriers will be packed full of F35 any time soon, so the bodge is OK.

In a decade that will change, and the RN will need that Ocean replacement so QE can focus on being the lean mean fast jet base she was built to be.

[Poiuytrewq]

Now your talking of increasing the budget for more ships, if you have the budget for aviation enhanced supply ships, you have the budget for Ocean's replacement, leaving the carriers for what they were built for, but we still need more escorts for the standing commitments and task groups.

Im not proposing anything too radical here. Argus is due for replacment by 2024, this would fit in at the end of the MARS SSS build schedule and by using a design based on the MARS SSS hull an element of commonality would be retained.

By 2024 Argus will be well over 40 years old, it's unlikely it will be life extended much beyond that and due to its primary role it will have to be replaced hopefully with a design with enhanced aviation facilities and increased landing spots. If addional capacity was still required in the amphibious fleet a 5th MARS SSS variant could be built either similar to the Argus replacement or in the standard SSS configuration. Money will have to be found to fund the Argus replacement and any additional MARS SSS vessel at the end of build is unlikely to cost much more than £250m to £275m. Cheap if it solves the issues discussed previously.

I agree completely with your point about the escorts situation. It is clear that extra funding will have to be found and as further places to cut are in short supply only new money will reverse the decline.

[Poiuytrewq]

In a decade that will change, and the RN will need that Ocean replacement so QE can focus on being the lean mean fast jet base she was built to be.

I can't see any additional LPH's or LPD's being built before the Albions are replaced. Maybe the Albions could be retired quicker with 2 LHD's built to solve the aviation problem but that would require £1.5bn to £2bn of new money. Doesn't seem likely.

The cheapest way to solve the lack of landing spots in the amphibious fleet in the short to medium term is the MARS programme in my view. This extra MARS capacity could be scaled down when the Albion replacements eventually come into service.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

[R686]

Wonder when they will show it here in OZ will be interesting to watch

[Poiuytrewq]

Wonder when they will show it here in OZ will be interesting to watch

It's on the BBC iplayer if you can access that in OZ over your internet connection.

[shark bait]

I can't see any additional LPH's or LPD's being built before the Albions are replaced...

...The cheapest way to solve the lack of landing spots in the amphibious fleet in the short to medium term is the MARS programme in my view

Yes there is going to be no new carrier until the Albion replacement.

However can we really say there is a lack of spots? The RN have 2 very big carriers and not many jets...

[Caribbean]

However can we really say there is a lack of spots? The RN have 2 very big carriers and not many jets..

Is not one of the lessons of the Falklands also that you can lose most of your helicopter fleet in a single incident, if you concentrate them too much?

[shark bait]

Same argument for everything, distributing systems add resilience and tends to cost more money.

[Poiuytrewq]

However can we really say there is a lack of spots? The RN have 2 very big carriers and not many jets...

Its just in relation to getting as many troops ashore as fast as possible, especially if amphibious tactics are changing to over the horizon and flight times and distances covered are going to be much greater than before.

It would be good to think that there is a coherent plan and long term procurement strategy in place and it's not just less than ideal adaptions having to be made as the cuts continue to roll in....

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Wonder when they will show it here in OZ will be interesting to watch

Sorry, can't help there, but episode 2 was a good one!

[inch]

did Australian tv show a programme about the Canberra class build ,life onboard and bringing into service r686 like hms qe ?

[serge750]

As stated before we will not have that many F35 to fill out the carriers until late 2020's so I'm quite optimistic that when Albion/bulwark needs replacing that we will get proper aviation facilitys for their replacements as the QEC will not need replacing for a while, and hopefully be used mainly for their primary fixed wing role...

[R686]

did Australian tv show a programme about the Canberra class build ,life onboard and bringing into service r686 like hms qe ?

None that I know of expect for some YouTube clips of a time lapsed build and small news segments

Wonder when they will show it here in OZ will be interesting to watch

It's on the BBC iplayer if you can access that in OZ over your internet connection.

thanks ill check it out

[inch]

Cheers r686 shame they didnt.hope someone. Has the forsight too do one on the new italian carrier also

[Opinion3]

I am not sure I have seen, heard or read about any real features that are being added to make the QE or POW a replacement for Ocean. Yes the main artery route is sometimes quoted as being wider for this purpose but I understand it is as originally designed and in reality it is no match for a dedicated troop ship. It is wide enough but you'll still be walking carefully to avoid people things jutting out...

The carriers are AIRCRAFT CARRIERS and other descriptions sound entirely political.

[Opinion3]

I agree MARS SSS could be capable of four concurrent spots per vessel, which frankly sounds better than Ocean if you include the stores and Well Dock capabilities. If you then consider adding self defense (FFBNW) having five of these and using the T31 funds to punk them up sounds like an idea with potential.

A aircraft carrier is not a lilly-pad for troops, it is too valuable.

[Tempest414]

I can't see any additional LPH's or LPD's being built before the Albions are replaced...

...The cheapest way to solve the lack of landing spots in the amphibious fleet in the short to medium term is the MARS programme in my view

Yes there is going to be no new carrier until the Albion replacement.

However can we really say there is a lack of spots? The RN have 2 very big carriers and not many jets...

as we know the Albion's OSD is 2030 so as you say 10 year from now 2028 we will need 1 or 2 LPD,s in build to replace them or lose that capability. As for the carriers not being troop ship this was made very clear in a defence select committee meeting live on TV last year

[Poiuytrewq]

...as we know the Albion's OSD is 2030 so as you say 10 year from now 2028 we will need 1 or 2 LPD,s in build to replace them or lose that capability. As for the carriers not being troop ship this was made very clear in a defence select committee meeting live on TV last year

The out of service dates for Albion and Bulwark is 2033 and 2034 respectively.

It's really comes down to what extra capacity (if any) does the fleet need to properly conduct amphibious operations between now and the expected out of service dates of Albion and Bulwark.

[ArmChairCivvy]

2033 and 2034 respectively.

It's really comes down to what extra capacity (if any) does the fleet need to properly conduct amphibious operations between now and the expected

Exactly. Consider further what new designs (T31 designs, still competing, counted as "done") will be built between now and then.
- the answer is that any yawning gaps will be plugged by FSS (design); or not at all
- the gap , in my mind, is not the number of spots... but rather having enough medium/ heavy helicopters to use the "spots" to the full (whether for the initial landing, when concurrency is the issue, or for the subsequent supplying, moving e.g. artillery between positions further inland or simply having enough Medivac to cover lifting out from many LZs at the same time)