Posted on 06/06/2015 7:02:58 AM PDT by the scotsman
'The Royal Navy (RN) is returning the large deck carrier business after many years absence.
This means that the RN while shaping the concepts of operations for it new carrier and the RAF for the new carrier air wing, the two services are not constrained by the immediate past.
They are reinventing their approach to carrier airpower; not reshaping its carriers to deal simply with the addition of new aircraft to the carrier air deck, as is the US Navy.
Secretary Wynne once noted that a good way to rethink the role of the large deck carrier would be to clear the deck of its legacy airwing and imagine what a fifth generation enabled carrier might look like.
The RN and the RAF as the closest proximity of any country going to do that.
But this will not be easy, for the RN and the RAF will have to rethink their legacy approaches, and shape ways to work more effectively together as an embarked force.
This will involve significant cultural change as well, with the RN having operated largely as a “frigate navy for the past few years,” according to a senior RN official.
And for the RAF moving from a land-based mentality and the use of legacy aircraft will require a leap into operating a “fifth generation enabled carrier” and finding ways to integrate that capability within the overall air combat profile of the RAF.
In other words, it is not just about adding a ship or adding an aircraft.
It is about significant cultural change and the overall transformation of UK forces to a 21st Century paradigm of operations.'
(Excerpt) Read more at sldinfo.com ...
Pix, or it didn’t happen.
Saw a special on it.......
The ‘Liz’ has a diesel generator and a gas turbine propulsion.
For a nuclear nation this to me is backwards.
When the entire cvbg is not nuclear(maybe a few nukey cruisers) then why do the carriers need to be nuc? Operationally there is no difference in a conventional a/c and a nuc a/c.
Because a nuke carrier can leave it’s berth in 2015 and not have to return for refueling till 2045. No fuss no muss not need to refuel in the middle of action from some smelly oiler in 20 foot or up, swells
Fascinating. Thanks for posting.
Except of course as someone mentioned, for Jet A for the planes.....nuclear leaving more room for aviation fuel
They way they are headed, I figure it’ll be named the HMS mohammed. /sarc, but not really.
They should bring back the battleship too.
From an article written 2 1/2 months ago....
“Britain cannot afford to launch the second of its new aircraft carriers, HMS Prince of Wales.”
“The Royal Navy has operated one aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, since last July. The ship cost £3.1 billion to build, significantly more than was budgeted.”
““Each carrier is designed to accommodate up to 36 F-35s. But the MoD (Ministry of Defense) has so far agreed to purchase only eight F-35s ...” ““There is no point in having the carriers without jets,” the committee quotes Admiral Zambellas as saying. “
How much of the Queen Elizabeth's displacement must be wasted for diesel fuel?
A recent article has argued that these Harrier style jets are inferior to potential Chinese and Russian antagonists and that further raises the question, does the entire ship structure depend on the kind of propulsion system and in the case of the Queen Elizabeth lived the options to these sort of planes?
Even if all of these disadvantages are real, does it matter? Are the British correctly foreseeing the future of naval aviation as being a kind of three-dimensional, modern gunboat diplomacy of the Victorian age? If modern missile technology is ending the age of the super carrier, then the options are limited to actions against second-rate powers and for that purpose the Queen Elizabeth would not only be adequate but much cheaper.
They do that for the air wing the nuke airplane never caught on
That and there is no dental offices on board
Nuclear aircraft carriers are FAR superior to conventional aircraft carriers in every war-fighting respect! Else, why would the USA have built them?
The ONLY downside to nuclear aircraft carriers is the life-cycle cost, which is higher than conventional aircraft carriers.
HST, had USS America (CV-66) and USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) been completed as nukes, both would still be in service. They were laid down as nukes and converted to “save money.” It was a mistake! Neither ship was ever quite right, and they were retired long before their time; America in 1996 (31 years of service) and Kennedy in 2007 (41 years).
USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) OTOH, served FRom 25 November, 1961 until 1 December, 2012 — 51 years!
The Nimitz-class carriers currently serving have a lifespan of approximately 50 years. My guess is that their useful life span will be extended.
Finally, a convincing case can be made that EVERY USN ship larger than a LCS should be a nuke, but the bean counters won’t allow them to be contracted for, yet. If oil price increases resume their previous trajectory, nukes will become more attractive to the bean counters, and we’ll likely quit designing and constructing conventional USN ships larger than the LCS class.
Has anyone considered a Thorium Reactor powered ship????
Well thought out.
The use of modern offensive and defensive arms are a often a crap shoot until an action is needed. Gulf War 1 saw the Missouri and Wisconsin lobbing 16” shells while other ships launched various missiles.
I suppose big ships can make big targets for pinpoint accurate missiles.
During nam they built jet fighters without a gun. It seems they needed fighters with missiles and guns. No one knew.
Learning curves can be deadly enemies if you are too far afield for a particular situation.
Planners need a bit of Nostradamus in them.
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.