# RN to get new carriers



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

ROYAL Navy top brass were cock-a-hoop last night after the go-ahead was given to build two new super aircraft carriers each worth £2BILLION. Senior Service chiefs feared plans for the “floating battlefields” may be axed because of budget cuts. But defence chiefs and Government officials decided they were crucial if Britain is to keep its place as a world military power.

The move will create jobs in Portsmouth, Hants, and the Clyde shipyards in Scotland where the 60,000-tonne HMS Queen Elizabeth II and sister ship HMS Prince of Wales will be built. The vessels — which can carry 50 aircraft including fighters and bombers and serve all three forces at once — will come into service between 2012 and 2015. They will replace the three existing aircraft carriers — Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible — and are TWICE the size of the dated vessels which can launch only Harrier Jump Jets.

They will give Britain massive extra military muscle and mean the RAF will no longer need to seek permission to overfly other nations. A military source said: “They can just park up six miles offshore from an enemy country and deliver devastating firepower. “They’ll give a vastly increased range to anything the RAF could offer. Just the threat of deploying them may make hostile nations see sense.” A top Naval source said: “This means Britain will remain a significant military power.”

It is thought the decision was made after criticism of the Government over its plans to mothball Navy frigates and destroyers. The ships will be built by a consortium of BAe Systems and VT Group which have yards on the Clyde and
at Portsmouth.

They will have a “ski-jump” and a “catapult” for launching planes. Aircraft will be able to land vertically after missions.

(Source World Naval News)

So, two new carriers eh.......and what about manpower? Suggestions, please!

Jonty


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Both carriers are said to have the same crew requirements as the current carriers , around 750. With a bigger aircraft complement they might need more workshop men but its said her max is about 850 with the ability to hold another 4-500 Royal Marines and all their equipment. They will be Gas Turbine/Electric drive with 5 GT generators not all in one engineroom to improve survivability if hit.

The fact they will have a breast catapult means they will have to have arrestor wires which means they will be using the US Airborne Early Warning aircraft E2C Hawkeye. They are being built like this as the French want to build another carrier non-nuclear powered to suppliment the Charles De Gaulle which has just gone in for an 18month-2year refit leaving the FN with no carrier.

Good news at flipping well last !!!!!!


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Davie,

You sure about the Hawkeye? The Joint Maritime Strike Aircraft is more or less approved - but will we see US designed aircraft replacing our Harriers?

Hmm..........!

Jonty


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

Hi Guys

I,m not to worried about the aircraft at this point just if we will get the carriers these decisions can always be turned around.

Sorry to be a pessimist.

Paul


----------



## Lksimcoe (Oct 30, 2006)

You might get the US designed aircraft, but from what I've read, the Americans don't want to give control of the operating software, so while you might have the hardware, they won't fly.


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

just like the apache helicopters then 

paul


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

We have a world beater in the Nimrod - can't we come up with something that uses that kit but in a smaller airframe?

Why Oh Why are we following the US in seaborne / carrier avionics when we have the technology here? These ships should use UK manufactured kit to show the flag in more ways than one.

Jonty


----------



## johnalderman (May 27, 2006)

Total waste of money IMO.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

The Joint Strike Fighter is an almost 95% American aircraft. We've only had 5% input into it due to our extensive experience with Harriers. Apparently the Congress ( since the recent elections where the balance of power was shifted away from the Democrats ) has signed the do***ents needed to allow us total control of the aircraft and access to ALL the software codes.

The E2C Hawkeye is an airbourne radar station. Its a twin prop aircraft able to fly for about 6hrs and can be in flight refueled. Something I haven't seen is what air-to-air refueling aircraft the RN will get. My best guess is we will get whatever current USN aircraft is doing the job ( reason for having the catapult and arrester wires in my opinion , you couldn't get an E2C off or on the deck without them and you couldn't build a STOVL - Short Take Off Vertical Landing - aircraft to do the refueling job ).

Even the French use the USN's E2C Hawkeye 2000 radar planes so its not something we need worry about as it is a very very capable system which is far better than the Sea King mounted system we have had since the Falklands War 25 years ago.


----------



## wigger (Sep 25, 2005)

Its good news about the carriers but Paul UK does have a point.....its not to late for things to change ( I hope I am wrong). On a different note, does an order for two big carriers spell the end of a Trident replacement? To me Trident would be the bigger waste of money.


----------



## Santos (Mar 16, 2005)

Must be local election time !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Santos,

Aye indeed!

OK, so there are no more Russians under the bed (where they ever there?) - but we are being pulled in all directions, whatever folk may say. The deployment of the UK Military to literally anywhere in the world demands we have a presence able to cope with that threat, be it real or percieved.. 

Not forgetting the humanitarian work done by members of HM Forces all over the world, no matter your politics, there is a need for a capable military as we face threats from many countries (and bugger the politics as to why. We do. ) If we have to purchase 'off the shelf' aircraft, then so be it. At least it guarentees a commonality of purpose. I, for one, am glad tom see that we are at long last injecting capital into our dwindling military.

The carriers need an escort, and the new 'D' class may well be that carrier group - but whilst carriers may 'project power', they are vulnerable and Trident armed subs may well continue in service to provide deep cover for both the carriers and their groups as well as the UK when deployments limit the size of the Home Fleet. So, we may not see the Trident programme scrapped just yet.

Air to Air refuelling may well be an issue - have the US got those aboard the carriers, Davie - or do they rely on tankers pre-positioned from friendly bases? 

Jonty (placing tin hat firmly on head and fastening chin strap....)


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

Jonty 

The USN has small tanker aircraft based on all their carriers but for the life of me i can not think of the type.

They effectivly stay up round the clock during flying operations along with the SAR choppers.

Paul


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Here's the aircraft i've been talking about

E2C Hawkeye

S3B Viking
^this is the US Navies primary anti-submarine and air-to-air refueling aircraft

C-2A Greyhound
^US Navy primary transport aircraft for light stores , mail and personel

and the new strike fighter the F35-Lightning 2 ( US name don't know if we will call it anything else yet )
http://www.jsf.mil/

Davie


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

Davie Tait said:


> Here's the aircraft i've been talking about
> 
> E2C Hawkeye
> 
> ...


Davie the viking thanks for helping me out 

Paul


----------



## Brian Twyman (Apr 3, 2005)

USN carriers most certainly have in flight refuelling capability, using mainly the carrier based S3B Viking as a tanker.


----------



## wigger (Sep 25, 2005)

The US Navy's F-18E/F Super Hornets can also be used as tankers - they seem capable of taking over most of the roles that previously required several different types of aircraft. Shame we can't get a few if we eventually get the carriers.


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

*New Carriers approved?*

Jonty will you please point us to the source of this important announcement.
It is a very significant development for the RN and the British Forces, but it is not on any of the news sites that I can find. In fact the latest reports suggest that the 30 year old Illustrious and/or Ark Royal may need to receive further refits to keep them in service while the contract for their replacements are sorted out. 
Some of the comments in your report seem to be about a year old. The latest thinking is that the first step is that the BAE surface ship yards and VT Portsmouth plus Flagship Training and various support subsidiaries will be amalgamated in a company to be owned 55% by BAE and 45% by VT. This JV company will manufacture the main units of the ships. The remaining units will be offered to other fabrication companies. The units will be assembled by Babcock at Rosyth. 
A major problem is that having poured our money into various black holes (the Olympics, DEFRA, NHS, etc) the Government wants both ships for £3.6billion or less. No announcement is expected until the summer at the earliest.

Fred


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

It was announced last week on the main Scottish News bulletins Fred , I remember saying to my friends that it was another pre-Election bribe again.

Its been on twice on the BBC

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=aircraft+carrier&go=Search

Look to the right hand side and click on the 2 video links

Davie(Thumb)


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

*Is it true*

Thank you Davie.

Yes well! It seems to be a lobbying piece. For a contrasting view see todays Scotsman. http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=626952007 (Complete with a photograph of the wrong ship!) Unfortunately there is still some time to go before an order is placed.

Fred(Thumb)


----------



## David Wilcockson (Jul 10, 2005)

I`ve looked at the video links & it does not actually state 100% that the carriers will be built, it`s still speculation & spin. However I doo hope you guys are right as manufacturing needs a shot in the arm, & also the boost to navy morale.
David


----------



## AlexBooth (Jan 18, 2007)

From ¨The Scotsman¨ 24/04
*Navy set to keep 30-year-old ships in service over £3.6bn carrier delays:-

*THE Royal Navy could be forced to delay the retirement of Britain's ageing aircraft carriers because of delays in the programme to order replacement vessels, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. 

The decision would mean the mainstay of Britain's naval power in the next decade will be two ships which are both more than 30 years old. 
The prospect of prolonging the life of HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal will only heighten concerns about the state of the Royal Navy. 

Commanders led by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, have warned ministers they must spend more on the navy if Britain is to remain a global military power. 

The next generation of navy ships will be built around two new aircraft carriers, which at 65,000 tonnes and 230-metres long will be the biggest military ships Britain has ever built. 

But the £3.6 billion Future Carrier project has been hit by delays and bureaucratic haggling. The formal decision to place the contract to build the ships was first scheduled for 2003, but has yet to be made. 

The carriers would be built in pieces, at yards including Govan on the Clyde and Rosyth in Fife, with the contracts securing thousands of Scottish jobs for up to a decade. 

*Way to go mi lords !*


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Interesting!

The news I had was from a Dutch based shipping site. However, when I got home I went and pulled out my 'Royal Navy Handbook - an Official MoD guide' and it was basically saying the same thing about the carriers, including giving the same dates for service entry - tying the carrier in service date with the in service date for the JSF.

Hope this clarifies things?

BTW, good thread - the info is really coming in!

Jonty


----------



## johnalderman (May 27, 2006)

Lets hope it is just an election ploy and the whole idea is thrown into touch afterwards, why can't the MOD concentrate on defence rather than waste money on offencive aircraft carriers. We have plenty of runways here at home to defend ourselves without building floating ones.


----------



## twogrumpy (Apr 23, 2007)

Suspect that the building of the two carriers has more to do with pumping money into the Labour Party -Client State north of Hadrians Wall, rather than defence of the UK.
And yes I know parts are going to be built by VT in Portsmouth, but how long will this arrangement last?

twogrumpy


----------



## johnalderman (May 27, 2006)

Chose your handle with care Mr Grumpy![=P]


----------



## fred henderson (Jun 13, 2005)

*When?*

I am sorry Jonty, but the handbook info is just spin. We all know that this Government announces the same expenditure plans half-a-dozen times and each time pretends it is new money, then at the end of the day forgets about the whole idea. 

The carrier project has not yet been approved. The MoD has said that no approval will be given until the BAE - VT shipyard merger has been completed. That activity is still adding to the income of a tribe of lawyers and accountants.

Related to this project, there are plans announced for new support RFAs. From memory the special ship to re-supply the carriers' aircraft armament and stores has an in-service date of 2018/2020. This is probably when the carriers will arrive!

The good news is that the US has released funding to begin low rate initial production of two F-35A conventional landing JSF aircraft and long-lead funding to prepare for production of 12 more aircraft. These additional aircraft include 6 short take-off and landing F-35B varients, which are the type that UK is expected to buy. The F35C conventional carrier landing version for the USN has just started its critical design review stage. At present there are no firm UK orders for JSF aircraft and only an indicative date for these aircraft to enter service.

Fred


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Hmm, gets more interesting! Some news snippets:

The Herald - today: The Ministry of Defence will confirm the £3.8bn contract for two new aircraft carriers after the Scottish elections, according to Whitehall sources.

The Herald - February leader: February 2007: THE "main gate" decision has still not been made. The Ministry of Defence says it is waiting for "consolidation" in the maritime industry. Navy sources also fear the main gate decision now depends on the Comprehensive Spending Review in July. "Gordon Brown is keeping the navy dangling," one navy source said. The House of Commons defence committee warns of the "risk" that the carriers will be late, "leaving the Royal Navy without a carrier strike capability".

I shall shoot an e-mail off to the site owner I got the news from immediately. I stand corrected and humbled before you. Doh.........!

Basically, it seems that it is just one more election driven promise that may well not come to fruition. Someone mentioned airfields? They're closing more bases down, reducing manpower and the Nimrod is behind schedule....... God's teeth, what are our politicians doing?

I did hear that at one tiome they were looking at marinising the Typhoon for carrier service...........?

Jonty


----------



## william dillon (Jun 9, 2005)

twogrumpy said:


> Suspect that the building of the two carriers has more to do with pumping money into the Labour Party -Client State north of Hadrians Wall, rather than defence of the UK.
> And yes I know parts are going to be built by VT in Portsmouth, but how long will this arrangement last?
> 
> twogrumpy


I find your comment "Labour Party-Client State North of Hadrian's wall offensive, do you think that all people living above Hadrian's Wall are all Socialists or Commie's ?.
At least if they are built on the Clyde / Forth they will be built properly, hopefully on time & within budget.
Perhaps you would like to place the orders with a French shipyard & strike a blow against the "Client State" ?.(MAD)


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Heh Billy,
If the opinion polls are to be believed, it looks like it won't be a Labour state for much longer!!


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

now now guys however in true naval tradition may 3rd should put a Royal Navy shot across the goverments bows.

Paul

Ps for the non brits we have a lot of local goverment elections on the 3rd May.


----------



## R736476 (Jul 2, 2005)

AlexBooth said:


> From ¨The Scotsman¨ 24/04
> *Navy set to keep 30-year-old ships in service over £3.6bn carrier delays:-
> 
> I wonder what ships they were referring to?
> ...


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

invincible maybe but all if and maybe the new carriers get delivered.

paul


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I did hear the Chancellor saying that they would place the orders after the elections , I think its illegal to do anything that can be looked on as trying to exert undue influence on an election if your the party in power for a month before an election.

The Marinised Typhoon would be possible but more likely we would simply buy F/A 18's or Rafael/Mirage 2000's. It would cost a LOT of money to marinise the Typhoon , basically by designing a whole new airframe/under carriage and arrestor hook , etc which would take about a decade to get to prototype stage if we started now. OK if we only lease airframes from the US of France until they are ready but silly to start to do the work without having a realistic back up option.

Davie


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, got this a few mins ago direct from Tony himself (probably one of his acolytes) in response to the petition to stop cuts in the Royal Navy'

" The Government has no plans to reduce the size of the Royal Navy, to withdraw warships from operational service earlier than scheduled, or to place warships in 'mothballs'.

Far from making cuts, the Government is investing heavily in the construction of new warships for the Royal Navy. We are introducing the new and highly capable Type 45 Destroyers, the first two of which have already been launched. We are building the advanced and powerful Astute class nuclear attack submarines, of which three are now on order. Above all, we are buying two new aircraft carriers which will be the largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy and which will provide the UK with the most powerful carrier force outside the USA. The Navy has also recently taken delivery of new amphibious assault and support ships which are vastly more capable than the ships they replaced.

It is wrong to imply that the costs of operations in Iraq and elsewhere are being met at the expense of the Navy. The additional costs of these operations do not fall to the defence budget, but are met from the Treasury reserve.

Only one Royal Navy ship, HMS Invincible, is being held in a state of readiness from which it would require up to eighteen months to return to operational service. She is being held in this state of readiness prior to her final withdrawal from service, as scheduled, in 2010, by which time she will be over 30 years old. The Navy has no plans to place any other ships in such a state of readiness. "

Pre-election spin? Comments, please! Having sent that message, I read in today's 'Daily Express' that the RAF's Jaguar flights / squadrons have been effectively grounded........so what's the score? See: 

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...istics/RafJaguarsLeaveServiceAfter33Years.htm

Jonty


----------



## twogrumpy (Apr 23, 2007)

Jonty,

Do you believe him? I mean, afterall, he is a basically honest sort of guy.

2grumpy


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

I wouldn't believe Tony Bliar if he told me today was Thursday and I KNOW today is Thursday [=P] (Jester)


----------



## Paul UK (Jun 13, 2005)

Is he saying that we are building WMD cos if so we already have oil so we might get invaded.

Paul


----------



## ddraigmor (Sep 13, 2006)

Grumpy,

Of course I do, absolutely. No question about that. He was elected fairly, is a friend to many, a stalwart and incorrigable politician, a legal eagle of some repute. A musician, in touch with tioday's youth. Someone I'd love to have over for tea or to share a pint with after a hard day's politickin'.

Then again, I still believe in Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and that my employer would never ever do me harm, that my work colleauges will stand right behind me when there is an issue to be debated........

That answer the question?

Jonty


----------

