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
  • philbob
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Mar 2008
    • 308

    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    Core crew of 150???

    Cavour crew: 794, of which over 200 for the air crewing, to carry no more than 20/24 between planes and, mostly, helicopters. You want to carry no less than 18 F35 or 30 helos, so we probably go to almost 900 men and probably higher since normal air group for Cavour with this crew is merely 12 F35B and 8 Merlins helos.

    Cost without planes: 1108 million euro.

    You want a larger one, that carries more planes. Ideally, to justify them, they should have amphibious assault capability too, to replace Ocean and Albion class too.
    What we assume? 2 billions each, considering that british shipyards cost more than italian ones?

    No way. It will never work.
    The Cavor's core crew is 450, for the majority of her service life she will never see a full mardet, airwing, Flag staff, and crew at the same time. The French Operate the Mistral with just short of 200 men.

    And i have never said that is what i want i said that is the ideal maximum, knowing that the ship would nominally operate smaller air detachments. In addition to that the ship will not have a EMF and air wing at the same time.

    Comment

    • philbob
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Mar 2008
      • 308

      Originally posted by RVFHarrier View Post
      The problem with all this is that we're aiming to reduce cost but avoid losing capability where we can. For the sake of argument, let's use the Cavour as our yardstick here; it cost about $1.5b compared to about $2.5b for a CVF.

      First of all, we would have to pay penalties on the withdrawal of the CVF construction although I'm not sure how much those penalties would be.

      Then we have to consider that these new 30,000t ships have about 40% of the capability of a CVF yet are 60% of the price, it's been said on this forum before that the bigger the carrier the more cost effective it is. So to cancel the CVFs now (and incur penalty costs) and THEN replace them with ships that are either, depending on the number, going to cost even more or give less capability is a bit ridiculous given the nature of the current economic climate.

      Big carriers are the best trade off between cost and capability, what is being suggested above would end up costing more or result in reducing power projection capacity.
      I never said cancel the CVF i was just making a point which would of been a more useful allocation of resource. In fact in a earlier post I said now all must be done to ensure that the HMS Queen Elisabeth is commissioned or it will be the end of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom

      Comment

      • swerve
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jun 2005
        • 13612

        Originally posted by philbob View Post
        Cavor was designed to act limitedly as a LPH.
        LPH, yes. So you can land troops with helicopters, & via small landing craft suspended on davits. You can get infantry ashore. What then? How do you support them? How do you supply them? How do you get heavy equipment ashore? That's what the LPDs and/or LSDs do, until you capture or improvise a port.

        Cavour has radars & Aster 15 missiles for self defence, light AA guns & a couple of 76 mm dual-purpose guns, again for self-defence. If you don't have that capability on the carrier, you need it on escorts. You can't do without it.

        BTW, your proposed carriers/LPHs can't be both at once.
        Last edited by swerve; 14th September 2010, 10:13.
        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
        Justinian

        Comment

        • philbob
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Mar 2008
          • 308

          Also the Cavour is not a good example to compare it to, because she has a the weapons and sensor fit of a destroyer. A large Volume Search Radar, a multifunction AESA Radar, a 32 cell missile battery, and two 76mm naval guns.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by philbob View Post
            The Cavor's core crew is 450, for the majority of her service life she will never see a full mardet, airwing, Flag staff, and crew at the same time. The French Operate the Mistral with just short of 200 men.

            And i have never said that is what i want i said that is the ideal maximum, knowing that the ship would nominally operate smaller air detachments. In addition to that the ship will not have a EMF and air wing at the same time.
            A carrier without air wing...?
            Italy is not dreamland, but i can ensure you that, differently from Lusty, the Garibaldi, and in the future Cavour, do not run around that often without planes on board.

            We have very few Harriers, but they are all of the Navy, so there's no air force stealing them away from the ship. Same will be with the F35B going to the navy.

            Rarely Cavour will be at sea with less than 650 men on board.

            And to build small carriers with no well deck, with no embarked air group, and with self-defence weaponry only makes even less sense.
            Stick to the CVFs, and you won't regret it, i say. Half-assed projects shouldn't be the Royal Navy's field. The RN is a navy of excellence.
            "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

            • philbob
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Mar 2008
              • 308

              Originally posted by swerve View Post
              LPH, yes. So you can land troops with helicopters, & via small landing craft suspended on davits. You can get infantry ashore. What then? How do you support them? How do you supply them? How do you get heavy equipment ashore?

              Cavour has radars & Aster 15 missiles for self defence, light AA guns & a couple of 76 mm dual-purpose guns, again for self-defence. If you don't have that capability on the carrier, you need it on escorts. You can't do without it.

              BTW, your proposed carriers/LPHs can't be both at once.
              well that is the same strategy that currently exists with the RN, the LPH will land troops through vertical envelopment and the LPD's will send in landing craft and boats for heavy assets. this would occur with another ship providing air cover. The same as if the HMS Ocean and Albion and a bay were landing a BLT today they would be 'protected' by the Illustrious or Ark Royal, in a full wartime situation, as well as one of the six if not more of the type 45 destroyers.
              Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 10:07.

              Comment

              • philbob
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Mar 2008
                • 308

                Yes a carrier with out a fighter centric air wing, that is what happens now when the Ark Royal is being used as a comando carrier. And Again the Cavour is larger more expensive ship with a destroyers combat system. I do not know why the Italians designed her to be so man power intensive but they did, the carrier i propose is modeled after the Mistral concept, where specialty personnel are placed on board when needed.

                Liger are you Italian? Because you need to imagine your self as a British Admiral or defense minister for this scenario.

                I agree that they wont regret the CVF if they right size their fleet. But there doesnt seem to be any intrest in doing that. And Im not sure why you are proposing a well deck on a carrier they dont normally have it. do you know the differnece between a LPH, LPD, and CV?

                @ Sweve that is ok if the carrier is getting an escort that is why the UK is building the type 45 destroyer and type 26 frigate
                Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 10:12.

                Comment

                • RVFHarrier
                  Rank 3 Registered User
                  • May 2010
                  • 105

                  I was late in joining the discussion, so maybe got a misrepresentation of your position. However, it's still irrelevent without going into whether or not you would have done this now or done this ten years ago.

                  As has been said, getting five or six of these 30,000t ships begs the question of whether you want aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships. Because you seem to the spending huge amounts of money on very inefficient ships that end up, in essence, as neither.

                  Even with the pathetic mishandling of the current CVF programme in terms of cost overruns and delays, the two Carriers that come out as a result give monumental air cover, in comparison to their alternatives, and the ability to support amphibious landings at a 'mere' 4/5b; then we have the Albions, Bays and Ocean that give us a dedicated amphibious assault capability.

                  To have a fleet of six ships that are going to cost atleast 1b each and require far more crew than you seem to think, but that actually come out the other end giving us reduced capabilities in both roles and quite possibly costing us more, it cries inefficiency especially when we compare it to what the CVF programme turned out to be in the end.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    Originally posted by philbob View Post
                    Yes a carrier with out a fighter centric air wing, that is what happens now when the Ark Royal is being used as a comando carrier. And Again the Cavour is larger more expensive ship with a destroyers combat system. I do not know why the Italians designed her to be so man power intensive but they did, the carrier i propose is modeled after the Mistral concept, where specialty personnel are placed on board when needed.

                    Liger are you Italian? Because you need to imagine your self as a British Admiral or defense minister for this scenario.
                    Still, even with the fighters down, in LPH role you'll have 150 men in the command center and 200 for the helicopters. Nothing changes. More planes, less choppers, More choppers less planes, but the point does not change.
                    "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

                    • philbob
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Mar 2008
                      • 308

                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                      Still, even with the fighters down, in LPH role you'll have 150 men in the command center and 200 for the helicopters. Nothing changes. More planes, less choppers, More choppers less planes, but the point does not change.
                      As a LPH her air craft would be at the beck and call of the marines, they wouldnt be there to provide air defense

                      Comment

                      • swerve
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2005
                        • 13612

                        Originally posted by philbob View Post
                        well that is the same strategy that currently exists with the RN, the LPH will land troops through vertical envelopment and the LPD's will send in landing craft and boats for heavy assets. this would occur with another ship providing air cover. The same as if the HMS Ocean and Albion and a bay were landing a BLT today they would be 'protected' by the Illustrious or Ark Royal, in a full wartime situation, as well as one of the six if not more of the type 45 destroyers.
                        Ah, so you will keep the single-role LPDs & LSDs, & your five light carriers will replace three current ships. And this is supposed to save money?
                        Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                        Justinian

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          Originally posted by philbob View Post
                          As a LPH her air craft would be at the beck and call of the marines, they wouldnt be there to provide air defense
                          Yeah. But the choppers fly without crew? Without ground crews, too? It would still take around 200 men of the air group. Even Ocean has on board around 180 FAA men.
                          "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

                          • philbob
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Mar 2008
                            • 308

                            Originally posted by RVFHarrier View Post
                            I was late in joining the discussion, so maybe got a misrepresentation of your position. However, it's still irrelevent without going into whether or not you would have done this now or done this ten years ago.

                            As has been said, getting five or six of these 30,000t ships begs the question of whether you want aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships. Because you seem to the spending huge amounts of money on very inefficient ships that end up, in essence, as neither.

                            Even with the pathetic mishandling of the current CVF programme in terms of cost overruns and delays, the two Carriers that come out as a result give monumental air cover, in comparison to their alternatives, and the ability to support amphibious landings at a 'mere' 4/5b; then we have the Albions, Bays and Ocean that give us a dedicated amphibious assault capability.

                            To have a fleet of six ships that are going to cost atleast 1b each and require far more crew than you seem to think, but that actually come out the other end giving us reduced capabilities in both roles and quite possibly costing us more, it cries inefficiency especially when we compare it to what the CVF programme turned out to be in the end.
                            It will be intresting to see what happens and like i said this is just a kind of what if thing, but sometimes war is more then just economics. If there is a cirisis popping up somewhere and you only have two carriers, one of which is down for repairs and the other dealing with some other BS you would wish you had that smaller aviation ship.

                            Like I said the CVF will be a good ship and a even better one if the UK creats a fleet structer that is realistic and puts as many hulls in the water as possible, and it must be built of bye bye UK ship building. But if i was the powers that be i would of gone for more of smaller but less efficient ships/

                            Comment

                            • swerve
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2005
                              • 13612

                              Originally posted by philbob View Post
                              As a LPH her air craft would be at the beck and call of the marines, they wouldnt be there to provide air defense
                              Hang, on, let me get this right. You're going to emulate the USNs LHDs, but with LPHs (no docks), & without the USNs carriers? You're going to put all your fleet air defence into the SAMs on the escorts?

                              Either you haven't thought this through, or you've missed out an awful lot of explanation.

                              Originally posted by philbob View Post
                              Also the Cavour is not a good example to compare it to, because she has a the weapons and sensor fit of a destroyer. A large Volume Search Radar, a multifunction AESA Radar, a 32 cell missile battery, and two 76mm naval guns.
                              Destroyers have longer range missiles. As I've already explained, Aster 15 is for self-defence, not area defence, & ditto the guns. They're rapid fire guns for use against small warships & aircraft, & even anti-ship missiles. And any carrier should have a VSR (note that CVF will have S1850M), & a fire control radar (CVF will have ARTISAN, Sampson being thought too expensive).

                              Part of the cost (& manning) of Cavour is the command suite. You'll need that somewhere in your navy, & if your carrier/LPHs don't have it, your fleet will need to be accompanied by the ships that do have it. Note that when a Mistral has an HQ aboard, its troop capacity is reduced, & the 160 crew of a Mistral is bare bones, with no air or command group.
                              Last edited by swerve; 14th September 2010, 10:34.
                              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                              Justinian

                              Comment

                              • philbob
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Mar 2008
                                • 308

                                Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                Ah, so you will keep the single-role LPDs & LSDs, & your five light carriers will replace three current ships. And this is supposed to save money?
                                Ten years ago with more decisive leadership it probably would of. You also would not of needed to worry about what would happen if you had to mothball one of your dedicated LPH's becuase the new carrier would be deisnged to serve as a dual role. , 4 ships designed to be CVFs intially, coming in at equal tonnage to what is going to be built also becuase the last ship would be higher speed replacements to the Ocean.


                                The fifth ship could also be bartered away if nessecary during budget cuts
                                Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 10:27.

                                Comment

                                • philbob
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Mar 2008
                                  • 308

                                  Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                  Hang, on, let me get this right. You're going to emulate the USNs LHDs, but with LPHs (no docks), & without the USNs carriers? You're going to put all your fleet air defence into the SAMs on the escorts?

                                  Either you haven't thought this through, or you've missed out an awful lot of explanation.
                                  please go back and reread all of my threads carefully. the ships will be designed to function as either carriers or LPH's just like the current CVF design and the Invicible class. And I have no Idea what you are taking about with all the fleets escorts and SAM's. there would never be a opposed landing with out air defense ship there to provide air control, and some frigates to act in a naval gunfire support role.
                                  Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 10:28.

                                  Comment

                                  • RVFHarrier
                                    Rank 3 Registered User
                                    • May 2010
                                    • 105

                                    Originally posted by philbob View Post
                                    It will be intresting to see what happens and like i said this is just a kind of what if thing, but sometimes war is more then just economics. If there is a cirisis popping up somewhere and you only have two carriers, one of which is down for repairs and the other dealing with some other BS you would wish you had that smaller aviation ship.

                                    Like I said the CVF will be a good ship and a even better one if the UK creats a fleet structer that is realistic and puts as many hulls in the water as possible, and it must be built of bye bye UK ship building. But if i was the powers that be i would of gone for more of smaller but less efficient ships/
                                    War is not so much a matter of weapons as of money - Thucydides

                                    The whole point of a military is that you want the most powerful military that your economy can sustain. If economics were simply disregarded don't you think we would be sailing Nimitz sized carriers now? Don't you think we would still have a 250+ ship fleet?

                                    I get the essence of what you're saying, that you can't just contract defence to the lowest bidder. But that's not what I'm saying either, what I'm saying is that you need the capability that you need; that need varies from country to country. In order to attain that necessary capability money has to be spent, most likely a lot of it, and to imply that you would actively buy ships you knew were going to cost you more money in order to reach that level of necessity is very disheartening for the British taxpayer, who ultimately pays for these ships.

                                    Every military should strive for efficiency and cost effectiveness to the extent that it doesn't compromise its effectiveness, that extent unfortunately doesn't cover these proposed five/six amphibious assault carriers that don't really seem to be able to do either role to the ability the Royal Navy would require them to.

                                    What you're proposing would require more direct cost; more manpower to crew them, and therefore more implicit small print cost; and more manpower required to build them; all for less effectiveness for a situation where effectiveness is the bottom line issue.

                                    These ships would perform badly on the economic front and they would perform badly on the war front (atleast compared to the alternatives that currently are taking precedence and for good reason).
                                    Last edited by RVFHarrier; 14th September 2010, 10:35.

                                    Comment

                                    • philbob
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Mar 2008
                                      • 308

                                      We agree that we should always strive for the best possible, but you don't need to let perfect be the the enemy of good. If you had to choose between a 3-4 KT large OPV that was designed to upgraded and you knew it would be purchased or a 5kt Multi role frigate where you might at best have a 50/50 chance of getting it built depending on what side of the bed some bureaucrat gets up in the moring,what would you do. I would go for the Large OPV because you at least you will get the ship.

                                      The five ships I propose replicate what already exists and becuase it is known that is a easier pill for alot of people to swallow , in fact to make it more realistic lets cut it to four. But at least you wouldnt have a very large gap in capablitly during budget crunches and there might even be export potential.

                                      Again large parts of the RN's problems do not stem from budget cuts, its a inability to justify what is needed and why, for some reason the "we are island nation" argument is not swaying the public, to compound this there does not seem to be any vision on what direction to really take the fleet, dont get me wrong the CVF, type 45, and Astute are amazing ships and down right gorgous but that alone is not enough to justify there existence to the public especially at the publics own unreasonable self centeredness about its entitlements, guess what you need a navy to make sure you can still receive those entitlements but that is not registering to the public right now

                                      I will also concede my ships will not be perfect, but technically neither will the CVF unless it was 100kt and nuclear powered with a air wing of 75. But my ships would preform better then what is currently in service and I would even say better then what the majority of Europe and some of the Asian Tigers are putting to sea. Lastly the CVF i wont say wont provide a massive increase in preformace, but to get the greatest syngery out of that preforamce the RN must be right sized, built around two carriers a smaller number of high end capital ships and a huge number of low cost and Low end amphibs and modular OPV's and support ships.
                                      Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 10:56.

                                      Comment

                                      • RVFHarrier
                                        Rank 3 Registered User
                                        • May 2010
                                        • 105

                                        Originally posted by philbob View Post
                                        We agree that we should always strive for the best possible, but you don't need to let perfect be the the enemy of good. If you had to choose between a 3-4 KT large OPV that was designed to upgraded and you knew it would be purchased or a 5kt Multi role frigate where you might at best have a 50/50 chance of getting it built depending on what side of the bed some bureaucrat gets up in the moring,what would you do. I would go for the Large OPV because you at least you will get the ship.

                                        The five ships I propose replicate what already exists and becuase it is known that is a easier pill for alot of people to swallow , in fact to make it more realistic lets cut it to four. But at least you wouldnt have a very large gap in capablitly during budget and there might even be export potential.
                                        Your example is irrelevent because you're using hindsight gained from 2010 to apply it to the deciscions made prior to the hindsight.

                                        Noone says that they'll decide to build a frigate and then immediately apply a 50% chance of being built to it, they decide to build the frigate and then as economic situations change they can start to consider whether or not the frigate was the way to go. To answer your question in that respect, it will always be the frigate.

                                        What you should be phrashing the situation as is a situation in which you have two 60,000t aircraft carriers vs four 30,000t aircraft carrier/LPH hybrids that both have a 100% chance of being built at the time of consideration.

                                        The deciding factor at the time isn't how likely they are to be built, otherwise the one with doubt cast over it wouldn't be considered in the first place, it's which option is going to provide us with what we need at the best cost. In this case, they both give the same 120,000t of water displaced but one option gives you the ability to have far more planes in the air at both a more efficient and maybe even a lower cost (given your previous posts, what you want of these ships would end up with a crew of far more than 150 and a cost of well over 1b).

                                        Comment

                                        • philbob
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2008
                                          • 308

                                          Originally posted by RVFHarrier View Post
                                          Your example is irrelevent because you're using hindsight gained from 2010 to apply it to the deciscions made prior to the hindsight.

                                          Noone says that they'll decide to build a frigate and then immediately apply a 50% chance of being built to it, they decide to build the frigate and then as economic situations change they can start to consider whether or not the frigate was the way to go. To answer your question in that respect, it will always be the frigate.

                                          What you should be phrashing the situation as is a situation in which you have two 60,000t aircraft carriers vs four 30,000t aircraft carrier/LPH hybrids that both have a 100% chance of being built at the time of consideration.

                                          The deciding factor at the time isn't how likely they are to be built, otherwise the one with doubt cast over it wouldn't be considered in the first place, it's which option is going to provide us with what we need at the best cost. In this case, they both give the same 120,000t of water displaced but one option gives you the ability to have far more planes in the air at both a more efficient and maybe even a lower cost (given your previous posts, what you want of these ships would end up with a crew of far more than 150 and a cost of well over 1b).
                                          Hind sight is important becuase it highlighted one very important factor and that is decisive leadership could of put a end to alot of the uncertainty that existed during the design phase. the problem was no one wanted to be wrong and painted that way so they were reluctant to take a chance until it was too late. the same thing is currently happening now with the Next gen bomber debate at the pentagon.
                                          I also understand that my little carriers are not completely thought out and what my lists are what would be ideal but Im not a absoluteist and am more then willing to flex on the ships out fittings, at least other then the speed requirment but it is a hell of a lot more thought put into them then most 26 years olds would of, CAMM can go or stay that doesnt matter but what does is that you try to get a core crew of 150-200 maybe even 250 tops but they are only responsible for the ship, the air wing will provide matiance, ordance, fuel and the majority of the flight deck personel for the air craft as well as the pilots. if its a LPH the EMF will provide the landing force and there gear, the landing helicopters and ectra.

                                          Lastly, it does not matter what is built it will cost more then a billion anyway, the mistrals are bare bones and they are cost just shy of a billion

                                          Its four here and i want to goto bed but I want to see what you are going to write next
                                          Last edited by philbob; 14th September 2010, 11:10.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X