Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Roders96]

Why?

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see every DS-30M mount get a Martlet pannier on the side, but I suspect if its an easy clip on kit we're likely to see more purchased than if it turns into a extensively modified mount (like the SeaHawk Sigma from MSI).

Improves redundancy too!

[RichardIC]

It's all true:

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... e-concerns

UK parliament requests F-35 updates due to Carrier Strike concerns

The UK parliament has requested that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) urgently provide it with programmatic cost updates on the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning procurement programme as part of wider concerns with a lack of funding for the Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Carrier Strike capability.



The request was made in a House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report titled ‘Delivering Carrier Strike: 23rd Report of Session 2019–2021’ that was published on 13 November. In the report, which addressed what it described as a failure by the MoD to provide the capabilities essential for the RN’s two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the PAC outlined a series of concerns with regard to the number of F-35Bs that will be needed, as well as the United Kingdom’s ability to pay for them.

“The [MoD] acknowledges that it will need more than the 48 Lightning jets it has ordered so far to sustain Carrier Strike operations through to the 2050s and beyond. It originally intended to buy 138 aircraft, but its assumptions for using the carriers have changed since [the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) of] 2015 and it failed to give us a clear answer on how many more jets it now needs,” the committee said. The MoD regards Carrier Strike’s full operating capability as being two UK Lightning squadrons of up to 24 jets operating from either HMS Queen Elizabeth or HMS Prince of Wales , which it aims to achieve by the end of 2023.

[Max Jones]

Hopefully they get things in order soon. I generally try to stay optimistic about F-35B orders but I don't think two squadrons of 24 jets should be seen as full operating capability but rather just the default requirement. A wartime load suggested of 50+ aircraft would imply at least 3 squadrons so if 24 is the upper limit, that won't suffice - even if we never end up using that many.

[Ron5]

From our favorite Telegraph reporter:

Royal Navy's aircraft carriers lack purpose because there aren't enough jets and support ships

Cross-party committee warns that MoD failures 'will restrict how it can use HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales for many years'
By Danielle Sheridan, Political Correspondent 13 November 2020 • 12:01am

The Royal Navy's aircraft carriers lack purpose because 'penny-pinching' means there aren't enough jets and support ships, the Commons spending watchdog has said.

Ministers were accused by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of a "debilitating lack of clarity" about what they want the £6.4 billion HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales to achieve.

It comes after the National Audit Office said in June that the carriers’ could become nothing more than "very expensive toys" due to a lack of support fleet.

Meanwhile, the PAC warned problems with the carriers’ Crowsnest airborne radar and surveillance system, which monitors the skies, land and sea around the Navy's aircraft carriers, was running 18 months late and will leave them with "less protection than planned".

It also agreed with the NAO that there is a lack of support vessels to supply the carriers and an uncertainty around how many Lightning II jets will now be needed.

The UK has so far ordered 48 Lightning II jets, far less than its original intention to purchase 138, although its assumptions on how the carriers will be used have changed since then.

The cross-party committee warned that the Ministry of Defence's "failure to fund several key supporting capabilities will restrict how it can use the carriers for many years".

Highlighting problems with the carrier strike programme, the committee said that the Crowsnest delay was due to “poor contractor performance and inadequate departmental oversight”.

"The department also lacks the support ships it needs to supply the carriers and has not yet developed a long-term solution to move people and goods to and from a carrier group,” the MPs said.

"There remains a disturbing lack of clarity about the costs associated with purchasing and supporting the Lightning II jets, as well as about how many more the department will need or can afford in the future."

Further problems could be caused by the highly anticipated integrated defence review, which is due to be released ahead of the delayed multi-year Whitehall spending settlement.

Committee chairwoman Meg Hillier said: "As things stand the UK has two world-class aircraft carriers with limited capability because the wider debate about the UK's strategic defence capability - and funding - has been repeatedly delayed.

"This debilitating lack of clarity threatens our national defences yet it's not likely to be resolved when the strategic defence review and the comprehensive spending review look likely to be out of step with each other once again.”

Ms Hillier called on the MoD to “capitalise” on the investment the UK has made “and deliver Carrier Strike”.

An MoD spokesman said the committee and the National Audit Office had recognised that "considerable progress" had been made since their last reports in 2017.

"Carrier strike is a complex challenge which relies on a mix of capabilities and platforms. We remain committed to investing in this capability.”

[Ron5]

Some interesting sections from the report itself:

23. The carriers cannot be used on their own and need a range of support vessels to provide supplies and protection. The Department told us that in a conflict situation, for example, it would need anti-submarine warfare frigates, anti-aircraft destroyers, and hunter-killer submarines. Deploying Carrier Strike will therefore require a significant proportion of the Royal Navy’s fleet. However, the Department faces financial pressures and funding shortfalls over the next 10 years which could restrict investment in capabilities and upgrades. For example, it needs to upgrade the propulsion systems of all six Type 45 destroyers by the mid-2020s and is replacing the outdated Type 23 anti-submarine frigates with specialist Type 26 frigates from 2027. The Department told us that it has made a case to HM Treasury for increasing the size of the surface fleet, but no outcome was yet forthcoming. Furthermore, the ships need to be crewed to operate. The Department said it was not aware of any problems regarding the surface fleet but admitted that crewing submarines was more of a struggle.

24. The operational freedom of a carrier group relies on tankers supplying it with oil and water, and solid support ships providing food, ammunition and general stores, where and when they are required. The Department identified that it needed new solid support ships in 2005, and by 2017 it had decided that a fleet of three new support ships was necessary, entering service from 2026. Indeed, the Department told us that the fleet solid support ship programme was one of the four key components of its ambition to develop Carrier Enabled Power Projection. It began the procurement of the three ships in May 2018 but stopped the competition in November 2019 because it did not have a compliant bidder. The Department told us it was now reconsidering its requirement and had not yet launched a further competition. It has not confirmed when the first new ship will now enter service but estimates it will be October 2027 at the earliest, and possibly as late as April 2029.

25. In the meantime, the Department must rely on RFA Fort Victoria, which has limited cargo capacity, to provide the carriers with stores and munitions. RFA Fort Victoria entered service in 1994 and is due to retire in April 2028, having already been extended beyond its 25-year service life. Furthermore, this ship will be unavailable for much of 2022 as it undergoes major maintenance work.

26. The Department told us that, consequentially, it would have to think through howmuch spares and stores it must preload onto the carriers before they are deployed. It would also need to manage the consumption rates of stock and spares, depending on the environment the ship was operating in. Where necessary, it might also need to seek support from allies. The Department admitted that having only RFA Fort Victoria would inevitably constrain carrier operations, and that it had known about this issue since 2011, when the delivery of the new fleet solid support ships had first been delayed.

27. We were also concerned that the Department had not found a solution for other unfunded supporting capabilities since our 2018 report. For example, a Maritime Intra-Theatre Lift capability is crucial for moving spares (including Lightning II parts), people and, potentially, high-value assets around the fleet and to shore. The Department’s plans to develop a dedicated long-term capability have been limited by funding constraints and lack of data on what support a carrier group will need. The Department admitted it requires a long-term solution and anticipates that this will be an un-crewed autonomous system of some form. However, it is unlikely to provide this in the next 10 to 15 years. The Department told us that for the foreseeable future, therefore, it must rely on its interim solution, using Merlin Mark 4 helicopters. It assured us that this provides an adequate capability to operate the carriers. However, this solution relies on competing for spare capacity on helicopters which have other roles and restricts Carrier Strike’s ability to operate where required because of the helicopters’ limited range.

[topman]

Long winded way of saying, we can't afford it all.

[ArmChairCivvy]

not confirmed when the first new ship will now enter service but estimates it will be October 2027 at the earliest, and possibly as late as April 2029.

The Department admitted that having only RFA Fort Victoria would inevitably constrain carrier operations, and that it had known about this issue since 2011, when the delivery of the new fleet solid support ships had first been delayed.

All the bolded bits boil down to 2010 & Ft. George
... a long holiday, like 20 yrs

Then there were three other things (in the report)

[SW1]

There eyes have been far far to big for there belly for a very long time it was always gonna end in tears.

[Scimitar54]

Wrong!

It has happened because (at least from the 2010 SDSR) HMG have reduced the funding available to the MOD, without realising (or perhaps caring) that the Carriers needed much more infrastructure, by way of Surface Escorts,
Submarines, Supply Ships, Rotary and Fixed Wing Aircraft and the necessary personnel to operate them than they wanted to pay for. Talk about tying the hands and feet of the MOD and then expecting them not only to survive but to reach the stated destination.

[Ron5]

The guy in charge of the 2021 Defence and Security Review has just carried all his stuff out in a box.

I was thinking that was good news

[Scimitar54]

Very Good Sir!

[Ron5]

From the Telegraph

Defence industry celebrates Dominic Cummings' departure

'Unguided missile' Cummings brought 'chaos' to defence plans, with 'mutual contempt' between him and the MoD
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 13 November 2020 • 4:30pm

Britain’s defence industry has reacted with “relief” and “joy” at news of Dominic Cummings’ imminent departure from No 10.

Military analysts and industry sources have described a sense of “chaos” caused by “lack of understanding” on the part of the Prime Minister's top adviser as he delved into defence spending plans.

One leading figure in the industry referred to an air of “mutual contempt between Cummings and the Ministry of Defence”, which meant determining the UK's security needs and how they should be prioritised had been “distorted”.

Mr Cummings used his blog to attack defence contracts, saying they were loaded with “flawed incentives so big, powerful companies continue to loot the taxpayer”.

He has also backed buying off-the-shelf equipment from abroad rather than bespoke kit tailored for British needs.

A favourite target of his was the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, which Mr Cummings thought were outdated and “already cannot be sent to a serious war with against a serious enemy”.

Mr Cummings also advocated the adoption of new technology. In the five-yearly security review – which was due in a few weeks but delayed into 2021 by the pandemic – he is understood to have been pushing for greater focus on cyber and unmanned warfare.

This would mean a retreat from traditional weapons systems such as aircraft, ships and armoured vehicles. Mr Cummings is suspected of being behind stories over the summer that the security review could set out plans for the Army to retire its tanks.

With the UK such a big customer, defence companies were unwilling to speak on the record for fear of harming relations with the government.

One senior sourced said: “Cummings was proud to be stepping outside the normal procurement process and he was frustrated by it. However, he didn’t understand why it is done the way it is.”

Francis Tusa of Defence Analysis said: “For those who dealt with him, it’s a case of good riddance. There’s a degree of joy in the industry.”

The often multi-decade nature of defence projects requires longer-term thinking about how they are designed and supplied, he added. There was a feeling that Mr Cummings' ideas posed risk to major programmes, either through reducing or abandoning them, or requiring rethinks that would slow them down and push up pricing, he said.

Mr Tusa said: “What costs in defence is the customer changing their mind about what they want. What the industry wants is a degree of certainty so they can plan how they are going to do things, invest in them and bring costs down.”

Heavyweight think-tank RUSI added that while Mr Cummings' unorthodox methods did bring some new ideas, they could be harmful.

Trevor Taylor from the think-hour said: “Cummings going is being met with a certain amount of relief in industry.

“Having an unguided missile like him banging around can be useful in discussions but you have to make decisions. The views he held seemed to be significantly based on a lack of understanding on aspects of defence and its centrality to national power.”

Mr Taylor likened Mr Cummings' rationale of how military kit is purchased as to buying domestic goods: "He saw buying a weapons system like buying a washing machine or a car tyre, without regard of the freedom of action that making your own equipment gives a country."

[dmereifield]

If this means procurement goes back to the way it was, then we're going to continue pissing money up the wall with little to show for it. I've no idea what Cummings wanted to do or whether it would work, but we can't carry on as it has been this past decade or more

Ps sorry for off topic rant

[ArmChairCivvy]

Having an unguided missile like him banging around

That's a rocket. The engine has been lit... and he is off

[BlueD954]

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 2/default/

The usual criticism of Carrier Strike by the Public Accounts Committee

[PhillyJ]

Scarey to think that 1 year ago to the day I was on the jetty with family welcoming nipper home for the first time on his brand spanking new carrier. We were lucky to be allowed on board and have a wander round his new home once she was tied up, very much pre-Covid. It makes me sad to see all these recent new arrivals and homecomings knowing that other families are not allowed to be there, the RN do put on a great show for those waiting on the shore. Doesn't look like he will be going anywhere soon, bring on 2021.

[Scimitar54]

UK Defence Journal Reports:-
“Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that the UK will routinely deploy a ‘permanently available, ready to fight’ Carrier Strike Group”.

I think we can now take it as read that this will require 2 x F35B Squadrons either reserved for “Carrier Operations” or aboard the “Deployed Carrier” on a more or less permanent basis.

We can forget about “just 12 x F35B” being the fixed wing component in the standard Air Group.

[Roders96]

Looks like the wake Island avengers did their job.

[bobp]

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that the UK will routinely deploy a ‘permanently available, ready to fight’ Carrier Strike Group”.

Depends on Boris's big words being translated into big realities. Lets hope that the above statement means another order to lift the numbers.

[SW1]

Nearly sure it was mentioned several weeks ago the standard air group was 6-8 fast jets

[Ron5]

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson has stated that the UK will routinely deploy a ‘permanently available, ready to fight’ Carrier Strike Group”.

Depends on Boris's big words being translated into big realities. Lets hope that the above statement means another order to lift the numbers.

Well he did put money where his mouth was

[Ron5]

Nearly sure it was mentioned several weeks ago the standard air group was 6-8 fast jets

RAF wishful thinking

[Old RN]

I see that the Brazilian navy is proposing to operate Hermes 450 UAV from ex-HMS Ocean. As the Hermes is the basis for the Watchkeeper in RA service does this show one could operate the exisiting UK Watchkeers from QE/POW? It would provide an interesting capability with ~16 hours mission time at 160km from the carrier with a very high definition radar and an EO package. Given the integration should be straight forward it would have limited initial cost and storing 3-4 packaged Watchkeepers in the hanger would hardly be noticed!

[Roders96]

What is the distance from the carrier at 12 hours mission time?

[Old RN]

What is the distance from the carrier at 12 hours mission time?

I believe the 160km is based on maintaining the comms link.