Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MisterQ
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2008
    • 475

    Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post


    Is this even FACT? That there was specific money set aside for FRES that went directly into the carrier programme.

    Dannat seems ridiculously army centric. Still, General Richards doesn't sound a lot better great army man though he undoubtedly is.
    No, it isn't a fact, FRES went to the right because they couldn't make up their bloody minds. Frankly it's a good job FRES did get kicked into the long grass (just wait ASCOD will too), the MOD has already started its Future Protected Vehicles Program and far more flexible LAVs have come to market since we decided (then changed our minds)to go for the Piranha V.

    Comment

    • nocutstoRAF
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • May 2010
      • 954

      Unfortunately Sir Richard Dannatt has voiced that in his opinion that FRES was delayed due to money for them being used for the carriers and a lot of people are going to believe him over whatever the MoD might say on the matter.
      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
        Unfortunately Sir Richard Dannatt has voiced that in his opinion that FRES was delayed due to money for them being used for the carriers and a lot of people are going to believe him over whatever the MoD might say on the matter.
        Moreover, they are reporting that, against any logic, it'll be the Harriers and not the Tornado that go. With fears getting back in force over the CVFs as well:
        (and even before, i might add myself, on early retirement for Lusty and Ark at that point)

        http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fif...iers-fear.html

        Besides, Osborne stated that the treasury will break the agreements and not fund the Trident replacement.
        The money will have to be torn out of the defence budget, which is impossible. At this point, Fox should just throw a tantrum and make it very clear that if the government wants to stay in the nuclear league, it has to pay for it. Because the MOD can't sacrifice all its conventional warfare capability to pay for Trident. At that point it makes more sense to scrap Trident replacement for real, much as i'm totally pro Trident replacement.

        USA has a separate budget for nuclear deterrence matters. The agreement was that UK would follow the same line.
        The MOD hasn't the money for this program as well. If the government is committed to it, it has to pay for it. Otherwise, it should just renounce to the deterrent altogether and accept the consequences.
        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

        Comment

        • nocutstoRAF
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2010
          • 954

          In an attempt to be positive - the early retirement of the Harriers might just mean they will join the USM in buying F-35B's to use in 2012 as the USM seem confident that the F-35B will be in service by then, or that EMCAT works and they will switch to catapult based fighter, in either scenario the high cost of keeping the Harrier's running is just not worth the extra cost.

          I view the whole Trident story as a cunning ruse - I think the Treasury is going to give Liam Fox the money for Trident less a 10 or 20% saving as part of the reduced MoD budget and all of the sudden over the long term the MoD's budget goes up (i.e from 2015ish - 2025ish the budget will be between 1.6 - 1.8 billion higher than normal to pay for the replacement for Trident).

          Interestingly Prof Malcolm Chalmers an economist at RUSI has suggested ways that the costs of Trident replacement could be reduced and the one I liked best was to stretch the Astute add a very small number of launch tubes for nuclear ballistic missiles and then build around 6 of the new class and deploy nukes on them when and as needed else use them alongside Astute, making it hard to be sure if and where the UK has its deterrent at sea.
          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

          Comment

          • kev 99
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Aug 2008
            • 1535

            Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
            I view the whole Trident story as a cunning ruse - I think the Treasury is going to give Liam Fox the money for Trident less a 10 or 20% saving as part of the reduced MoD budget and all of the sudden over the long term the MoD's budget goes up (i.e from 2015ish - 2025ish the budget will be between 1.6 - 1.8 billion higher than normal to pay for the replacement for Trident).
            You might be right, it certainly could be just an opening gambit in the horse trading over the MOD budget.

            Comment

            • Stryker73
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2010
              • 274

              Osbornes comments today certainly suggest no ruse.
              http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...net-split.html

              The Trident costs, I have made it absolutely clear, are part of the defense budget, Osborne said in an interview in New Delhi today. All budgets have pressure. I dont think theres anything particularly unique about the ministry of defense. I have made it very clear that Trident renewal costs must be taken as part of the defense budget.
              I think that's a game changer, and some of the options put forward by RUSI are going to have to be looked at.

              Comment

              • Liger30
                Armed Forces supporter
                • Jul 2010
                • 901

                the high cost of keeping the Harrier's running is just not worth the extra cost.
                Retire the Tornado earlier would save far more than retiring the 36 Harriers left, and bigger savings would allow a little bit of money to be used to speed up weapons integration on the Typhoons so they can replace the Tornado in every role.
                If you cut Harriers, instead, you have smaller savings and the loss of any ambition of power projection from the sea at least until the CVFs become active with some kind of airgroup.

                As to the proposal of modifying Astutes with an additional block with four Trident launch tubes, it certainly is fascinating. Bae apparently believes firmly that it is possible to build Astutes with such additional section, and already had proposed this, together with another option for a section with 16 VLS tubes for Tomahawks.

                Problem is, the UK is spending 200 millions on joint work with the US to design a Common Missile Compartment with 12 x 3-meters-wide tubes (larger than current Trident tubes) for the successor SSBNs, with the intention of keeping Trident II D5 in them until Trident II E6 (apparently the name of the successor missile) comes into service. Their greater diameter is also intended to allow the use of the tubes for other tasks, such as for Tomahawk multiple launchers and special forces insertion or for drones.

                Would it be possible to "size-down" from 12 to 4 tubes and design a "british section" that can be fitted to the Astutes? Good question. It is not half as easy as you may think, and it risks being expensive enough to carry out the needed changes.
                I would totally be in favour of such a move, but i don't want to make myself illusions.
                4 Trident missiles at sea would already be more than enough, i think... Better still, 2 Trident and 14 Tomahawks in 7-cell launchers would work for a lot of tasks.

                But is it feasible? Is it a saving? Is it politically acceptable?

                And build 6 additional Astutes with such modification? I'd love to see that happen, but seeing how hard it is to get 4 SSBN, i think it would be just as hard to get 4 modified Astutes. They would never give the MOD money for 6 more Astutes. Much as i'd love to see a fleet of 12/13 vessels between Astute "I" and "II". (I fear the Astutes will be only 6 in the end, with HMS Ajax being scrapped well before being started, so, even with 6 additional "Astute II", the total would be 12... And it would be a very good result already)

                As to the budget of the MOD increasing for Trident, making of the Treasury's tantrum effectively just a trick not to make it too evident that they pay for nukes, i wouldn't be too sure.
                I totally believe Osborne wants the MOD to spend for Trident from what budget it's got, without adds.
                Last edited by Liger30; 29th July 2010, 09:46.
                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                Comment

                • Jonesy
                  Neo-conversative
                  • Jan 2000
                  • 5097

                  "or that EMCAT works and they will switch to catapult based fighter, in either scenario the high cost of keeping the Harrier's running is just not worth the extra cost."

                  Can we put this one to bed now?. The ONLY criteria that will see a CATOBAR conversion for CVF-01 as completed is a total cancellation of F-35B. Returning to catapult operation throws away the whole operational concept of UK Carrier Strike as currently defined.

                  We will not put ourselves back in the situation of tying ourselves down to the need to maintain deck qualified pools of pilots, with reduced sortie rates, reduced airframe lives and higher shipboard operational costs just on a whim to say a few million quid per airframe.

                  Comment

                  • Stan hyd
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • May 2009
                    • 605

                    I looked at the RUSI - they rehashed what has been said on a number of occassions. I completely support the idea of having only 4 launch tubes on a sub for nuclear deterrant BUT it must be CASD. I want BAE to start looking at an elongated Astute now and come to the table with plans to implement this.

                    We have 7 Astute planned at the moment. I want when number 7 is finnished for work to begin on Astute II SSBN.

                    Comment

                    • Stan hyd
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2009
                      • 605

                      Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                      "or that EMCAT works and they will switch to catapult based fighter, in either scenario the high cost of keeping the Harrier's running is just not worth the extra cost."

                      Can we put this one to bed now?. The ONLY criteria that will see a CATOBAR conversion for CVF-01 as completed is a total cancellation of F-35B. Returning to catapult operation throws away the whole operational concept of UK Carrier Strike as currently defined.

                      We will not put ourselves back in the situation of tying ourselves down to the need to maintain deck qualified pools of pilots, with reduced sortie rates, reduced airframe lives and higher shipboard operational costs just on a whim to say a few million quid per airframe.

                      I hate this - Strike Carrier's are one of the worst decisions we ever made. We have tied ourselves into a situation where our carrier operations are hamstrung and limited in their capacity. You want a Carrier that can really do something let's make it a Fleet Carrier and stop talking rubbish.

                      Our navy needs its own Fix Wing back and the RAF need to be reduced drastically in their importance and influence. The fact we use Sea King AEW is a disgrace that will one day leave us exposed to serious threats.

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        Originally posted by Stan hyd View Post
                        I looked at the RUSI - they rehashed what has been said on a number of occassions. I completely support the idea of having only 4 launch tubes on a sub for nuclear deterrant BUT it must be CASD. I want BAE to start looking at an elongated Astute now and come to the table with plans to implement this.

                        We have 7 Astute planned at the moment. I want when number 7 is finnished for work to begin on Astute II SSBN.
                        As i said above, BAe already seems to have proposed that:

                        From the excellent Navy Matter's site: (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/fsm.htm)

                        [...] In order to keep costs down, an all-new submarine design has become considered unlikely for a Vanguard-class replacement and current thinking probably assumes an evolution of the Astute design - indeed BAE Systems Submarines has already examined two variants fitted with an extra hull section. The first includes the fitting external to the pressure hull of sixteen Mark 36 Vertical Launch System tubes for missiles such as Tomahawk, and the second includes four Trident II size (86 inch diameter, 36-feet usable length) missile tubes, installed aft of the fin. The later approach is preferred as the large tubes are extremely versatile, alternative to Trident II SLBM’s they could potentially carry a next generation ballistic missile, a multiple all-up round canister accommodating seven Tomahawk cruise missiles per tube, equipment and swimmer vehicles for special forces, Unmanned Underwater Vehicle’s (UUV’s), deployable decoys and sensors, and even encapsulated Unmanned Air Vehicle’s (UAV’s). While a re-role will not be trivial, the new submarines would certainly be far more flexible than the current SSBN/SSN divide permits.

                        While utilising a modified Astute design to carry Trident has been much discussed for several years, officials are now (December 2006) making it clear that this is not a trivial exercise, at the very least a major and costly redesign will be required. The final result may have as much similarity to the Astute's as the Astute's (originally called Batch 2 Trafalgar's!) have to the T's and V's. [...]


                        Since this was written, though, the UK invested 200 millions in work with the US on a Common Missile Compartment design (the US plans 12 launch tubes) with launch tubes actually far larger than 86 inches.

                        From DefenseIndustryDaily: (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...-UK-USA-05221/)

                        SSBNs are nuclear missile submarines. The Common Missile Compartment (CMC) sub-program would define the missile tubes and accompanying systems that would be used to launch new ballistic missiles, successors to the current Trident II/ D5 missile fleet used by the USA and Britain. Options include an increased diameter from 2.21m launch tubes to 3.04m, and the missile compartment will reportedly carry just 12 tubes each, as opposed to the current Ohio SSBNs’ 24, or the Vanguard SSBNs’ 16. [...]

                        Jan 28/10: Backward compatibility. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. in Sunnyvale, CA received a $29.7 million sole source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for systems engineering services, to help integrate current Trident D5 nuclear missiles into the new submarine’s common missile compartment.

                        Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA (53.38%); Cape Canaveral, FL (40.02%); Magna, Utah (3.54%); Groton, CT (1.55%); Olathe, KS (0.67%); Melbourne, FL (0.50%); Bangor, WA (0.27%); Dallas, TX (0.03%); and Port Washington, NY (0.01%). Work is expected to be complete by the end of FY 2011, on Sept 30/11. The US Strategic Systems Programs in Arlington, VA issued the contract (N00030-10-C-0043).

                        June 16/10: Northrop Grumman receives a $148.6 million sole-source cost-plus-fixed-fee contract to work on the CMC’s advanced launcher development program for FY 2010-2011. Specific efforts include technical engineering services to support the common missile compartment concept development and prototyping effort.

                        Work will be performed in Sunnyvale, CA from June 16/10 through June 15/11, with an additional one-year option to June 15/12. The Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) in Arlington, VA manages this contract (N00030-10-C-0024).

                        May 6/10: General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. in Groton, CT received a $6.4 million contract modification to design special tooling for the CMC. The award modifies a $76 million contract announced in December 2008 (see Dec 23/08 entry) for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design of the CMC for the United Kingdom Successor SSBN and the Ohio Replacement SSBN. If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract (N00024-09-C-2100) would have a value of more than $638 million.

                        Feb 16/10: General Dynamics Electric Boat Corp. in Groton, CT received an $26.3 million modification to a previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-2100) for continued procurement of common missile compartment prototype material, as well as manufacturing and testing activities for the United Kingdom Successor SSBN and the Ohio Replacement SSBN. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is expected to be complete by January 2012. The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC manages the contract.

                        The award modifies a $76 million contract announced in December 2008 for engineering, technical services, concept studies and design for the CMC (see Dec 23/08 entry) If all options are exercised and funded, the overall contract would have a value of more than $630 million. GDEB release. [...]


                        It is to be seen if BAe has any chance to take just four of the tubes and their related machinery from this CMC and fit them into a new section that can be added to the Astute.
                        Last edited by Liger30; 29th July 2010, 10:04.
                        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                        Comment

                        • Jonesy
                          Neo-conversative
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 5097

                          We have tied ourselves into a situation where our carrier operations are hamstrung and limited in their capacity. You want a Carrier that can really do something let's make it a Fleet Carrier and stop talking rubbish.
                          What a wonderfully juvenille rant!. What operations are hamstrung exactly in your opinion?. What CAN a Fleet Carrier do, that we plausibly may have a requirement to do, that the Carrier Strike platform cant do cheaper and more efficiently?.

                          Comment

                          • nocutstoRAF
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2010
                            • 954

                            Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                            "or that EMCAT works and they will switch to catapult based fighter, in either scenario the high cost of keeping the Harrier's running is just not worth the extra cost."

                            Can we put this one to bed now?. The ONLY criteria that will see a CATOBAR conversion for CVF-01 as completed is a total cancellation of F-35B. Returning to catapult operation throws away the whole operational concept of UK Carrier Strike as currently defined.

                            We will not put ourselves back in the situation of tying ourselves down to the need to maintain deck qualified pools of pilots, with reduced sortie rates, reduced airframe lives and higher shipboard operational costs just on a whim to say a few million quid per airframe.
                            I think you are right, that the F-35B is the way MoD is going and is part of a coherent plan and the MoD will only abandon the plan if the F-35B is cancelled. Saying that it is obvious that the heads of the armed forces are currently brainstorming all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas to cut costs and you cannot be sure exactly what will happen when people are forced to think outside the box.

                            With regard to the savings been only a few million nothing that LM has said has convinced me that when the UK decides to buy F-35B it will only be a few million pounds per plane more expensive than the alternatives, I expect it to still be 10 - 20 million pounds a plane more expensive than the cheapest alternative. Plus EMCAT is projected to reduce wear and tear on carrier airplanes so that their airframes last longer than if they are operate with a traditional catapult, so all the cost calculations for the different options might be out of date. By the way I am no fanboy of the SH or Rafale-M or any of the other alternatives all I want is that there be two carriers with enough aircraft available that when the UK needs to send one into harms way for strike mission it can do so.
                            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                            Comment

                            • Stan hyd
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2009
                              • 605

                              Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                              What a wonderfully juvenille rant!. What operations are hamstrung exactly in your opinion?. What CAN a Fleet Carrier do, that we plausibly may have a requirement to do, that the Carrier Strike platform cant do cheaper and more efficiently?.
                              Juvenille rant? Don't believe I was ranting Jonesy, because I dont agree with you doesnt mean its a rant. I might not have been here as long as you or posted as many times as you, but I always try to post with respect.

                              We have exactly the same requirements from our Carriers that the French, US navy have and you wont see them operating the Strike Carriers. Part of the reason the Argies did the damage they did was because of our switch to Stike Carriers.

                              Comment

                              • StevoJH
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2008
                                • 1024

                                Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                                Osbornes comments today certainly suggest no ruse.
                                http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...net-split.html



                                I think that's a game changer, and some of the options put forward by RUSI are going to have to be looked at.
                                And here was me thinking that the most important job of any government is to ensure its defenses are up to scratch.

                                In fact, the last government of Australia Routinely said pretty much that exact sentence.
                                Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by StevoJH View Post
                                  And here was me thinking that the most important job of any government is to ensure its defenses are up to scratch.

                                  In fact, the last government of Australia Routinely said pretty much that exact sentence.
                                  When a defence minister can go around and say "we can't afford to protect against every threat", it is clear that something is seriously, seriously wrong with the nation, its priorities and its reasoning.
                                  Besides, it was the total destruction of the awfully inflated "the state's most important job is the defence of the realm" argument.
                                  From that abused phrase and assured nuclear deterrent we are already slipping into non-assured deterrent and defence unaffordable.

                                  This has no precedents in history. Say it is humiliating it is still saying nothing about it.
                                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                  Comment

                                  • nocutstoRAF
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 954

                                    Just to show that we are not the only ones picking on Converteams announcement on EMCAT and debating the F-35B and if there is going to be a plan B alternative - I found this over on Think Defence:

                                    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/0...ing-ones-bets/
                                    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                    Comment

                                    • Jonesy
                                      Neo-conversative
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 5097

                                      We have exactly the same requirements from our Carriers that the French, US navy have and you wont see them operating the Strike Carriers. Part of the reason the Argies did the damage they did was because of our switch to Stike Carriers.
                                      1, We do not have the same REQUIREMENT for carriers as the French or Americans. Their carriers were designed relative to the Cold War. We are in a post-Cold War world where we do not need to do blue water sea control which is the only mission that the Fleet Carrier performs better than a Strike Carrier.

                                      Read the MoD REQUIREMENT for the Carrier Strike capability. It is not a Fleet Carrier by any stretch of the imagination. CVF offers the capability to be re-roled to Fleet Carrier operation, albeit on the low-performance side, but until the threat board reflects the need for a Fleet Carrier why spend the money on capability we dont need?. Just for the 'we can do it too' factor with the Yanks and the French?. Poor reasoning at best.

                                      2, The Argentinians did the damage because we had ASW and Commando carriers. A Strike Carrier like CVF in a Fleet that was optimised for expeditionary warfare and not bluewater ASW would have made the difference as much as anything else.

                                      I am sorry if you feel victimised, but, too many people are fundamentally misunderstanding what CVF and the MoD Carrier Strike requirement are actually about.......just because CVF 'looks like' it should be a fleet carrier. That, to me, is simple ignorance and should be challenged.

                                      Comment

                                      • F/A-18RN
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • May 2005
                                        • 256

                                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                                        1, We do not have the same REQUIREMENT for carriers as the French or Americans. Their carriers were designed relative to the Cold War. We are in a post-Cold War world where we do not need to do blue water sea control which is the only mission that the Fleet Carrier performs better than a Strike Carrier.

                                        Read the MoD REQUIREMENT for the Carrier Strike capability. It is not a Fleet Carrier by any stretch of the imagination. CVF offers the capability to be re-roled to Fleet Carrier operation, albeit on the low-performance side, but until the threat board reflects the need for a Fleet Carrier why spend the money on capability we dont need?. Just for the 'we can do it too' factor with the Yanks and the French?. Poor reasoning at best.

                                        2, The Argentinians did the damage because we had ASW and Commando carriers. A Strike Carrier like CVF in a Fleet that was optimised for expeditionary warfare and not bluewater ASW would have made the difference as much as anything else.

                                        I am sorry if you feel victimised, but, too many people are fundamentally misunderstanding what CVF and the MoD Carrier Strike requirement are actually about.......just because CVF 'looks like' it should be a fleet carrier. That, to me, is simple ignorance and should be challenged.
                                        Please forgive my ignorance but what is the difference between a Fleet Carrier and a Strike Carrier? I'm pretty certain in all the years I've been interested in naval aviation and in all the books I've read, documentaries I've watched, and more recently websites and forums I've frequented on the subject, I've heard the big US carriers as well as closer to home Ark Royal (IV), Eagle, Victorious and Hermes (before she lost her cats) referred to invariably as 'strike carriers' or 'the big strike carriers'.
                                        A few examples of this I found in The Fleet Air Arm An Illustrated History by Reginald Longstaff published in 1981 including page 222 paragraph 3 "The delayed blow of losing our last strike carrier* was lightened by the government statement that the third ship of the Invincible Class was to be named Ark Royal." And on paragraph 2 of the facing page "The name of Ark Royal as a strike carrier spanned 41 years of naval aviation, and she was the last of a once mighty fleet of carriers who helped bring peace to the world." And paragraph 4 of page 224 "On 30 July 1966, a new strike carrier* CVA01 was announced to replace the Ark Royal,".
                                        I'm familiar obviously with fixed or rotary wing carriers. I'm familiar with ASW carriers and Attack carriers as the US Navy used to field prior to the introduction of S3 Vikings and Sikorsky Ocean Hawks aboard their big carriers resulting in CVA becoming CV, but I must say I've always been of the opinion that the terms 'Fleet Carrier' and 'Strike Carrier' were interchangable. Is it a case of the number/variety of aircraft fielded or the facilities that the ship is equipped with?

                                        * My italics.

                                        Comment

                                        • Bager1968
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2005
                                          • 3635

                                          The USN defined them in this way:

                                          CVA: Attack Carrier - a carrier whose air wing is composed of aircraft designed for fighter and attack (bomber) roles, with only minimal self-defense ASW capabilities. This type developed from the WW2 Fleet Carrier types.

                                          CVS: Anti-Submarine Warfare Carrier - a carrier whose air wing is composed of aircraft designed to find and sink submarines. This type developed from the WW2 Escort carrier types.

                                          CV: Multipurpose Carrier - a carrier whose air wing is composed of aircraft designed for fighter, attack, and anti-submarine roles. This type is usually created by adding ASW aircraft to an Attack carrier in lieu of some of its fighter or attack aircraft.

                                          This is the type meant in current discussions of "Fleet carriers".



                                          In the 1950s & 1960s, the USN put its fixed-wing ASW aircraft in the CVS air wing along with ASW helicopters and 4 A-4 Skyhawks (armed with Sidewinder AAMs) for self-defense.

                                          The CVAs had only a few ASW helicopters and mostly fighter & attack types.

                                          The air wing of USS Hornet CVA-12 (later CVS-12) illustrates this perfectly: CV-12 deployment and air wing list

                                          When the USN retired all of the Essex class carriers in the early 1970s, the remaining carriers received S-3 Viking fixed-wing ASW aircraft in addition to their normal 6-8 ASW helicopters (except for Midway and Coral Sea, whose hangar height were too short to take them), and were redesignated as Multipurpose Carriers (CV).




                                          The UK uses the term "Strike" instead of "Attack", but the concept remains the same.

                                          Note the actual air wings of the "big 4" RN carriers of the middle Cold War period: RN carrier air wing composition list

                                          HMS Ark Royal:
                                          1955-1956: 16 Sea Hawk FGA6; 14 Sea Venom FAW21; 6 Gannet AS4; 4 Skyraider AEW1; 1 Dragonfly HR5
                                          This is a "multipurpose" air wing (note the ASW Gannets).

                                          1957-1958: 16 Sea Hawk FGA6; 14 Sea Venom FAW21; 4 Skyraider AEW1; 1 Dragonfly HR5
                                          This is a shift to a "Strike/Attack" air wing.

                                          1962-1963: 12 Scimitar F1; 14 Sea Vixen FAW1; 4 Gannet AEW3; 8 Wessex HAS1; 1 Whirlwind HAR5
                                          This is still mainly a "Strike" air wing, as the Wessex doesn't have the range or "on-station" endurance of the Gannet.

                                          1970-1978: 12 Buccaneer S2; 14 Phantom FG1; 4 Gannet AEW3, 1 Gannet COD4; 7 Sea King HAS1; 1 Wessex HAS1 (SAR)
                                          Same as above.



                                          HMS Hermes:
                                          1960-1962: 8 Scimitar F1; 12 Sea Vixen FAW1; 4 Gannet AEW3; 5 Whirlwind HAS7; 1 Dragonfly HR5
                                          "Strike" wing as above.

                                          1966-1970: 7 Buccaneer S2; 12 Sea Vixen FAW2; 4 Gannet AEW3, 1 Gannet COD4; 5 Wessex HAS3; 1 Wessex HAS1 (SAR)
                                          ditto

                                          1973-1979: 9 Wessex HU5; 9 Sea King HAS1
                                          Now there is a shift to an ASW/commando assault air wing (note the near doubling of the ASW capability).

                                          1981: 8 Sea Harrier FRS1; 9 Sea King HAS1
                                          And now to a "semi-multipurpose" air wing (but without the longer-ranged ASW aircraft of a true CV).



                                          The CVF is intended to carry F-35B for fighter & strike duties, but only a small number of Merlin HM.2s for ASW, which provide only a relatively close-in capability.

                                          In this sense, the USN carriers are also now back to CVAs (although they have not been redesignated as such), as the S-3 has been retired without replacement, and their only ASW capability comes from SH-60s, which are also pretty "close-in only" helicopters.

                                          So don't feel bad... no one in the world is operating a true "multipurpose" air wing any more... they are all either Strike or ASW carriers!
                                          Last edited by Bager1968; 30th July 2010, 02:55.
                                          Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X