SinoDefence Forum

Ambivalent · 09-20-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obi Wan Russell

Much as I'd like to see it too, we'll probably have to wait for some of those USMC Harrier pilots to rise through the ranks to more influential positions before the USMC seriously pushes for ski jumps. They would be a cheap upgrade for the LHA/LHD fleet though, as they have no moving or electronic parts and are just made of steel! And they would only mean losing one helo spot, not three as some USN Admirals keep saying! As long as they fit it as per the Spanish Juan Carlos I and not the Italian Cavour, they should be OK

No, you would loose three, two to port and one to starboard. An awful lot of amphibious assault planning revolves around helo sorties per hour and how many troops and tons of equipment the air wing can move per hours. Loosing even one helo spot per ship throws decades of planning out the window, er, porthole. That is a big deal when the minimum unload time for the ARG is six hours. I imagine the rotor heads in the USMC will have their say.

What is interesting to me is that there is a combined helo and jet test and evaluation squadron where I work. Marine and Navy pilots. The pilots who have faced real gunfire are all Marine helicopter pilots, and the jet jocks don't screw with them the way they would with a Navy helo pilot. It's the only place I can think of where the rotorheads are more respected than the jet jocks. Warms my heart!

bd popeye · 09-20-2009

Ambivalent, you must be in Miramar..

I was stationed there from July '85 to August 1991. Excluding the 6 months or so I spent on the Nimitz in '91. I worked in the Paraloft.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Through PM I was discussing with Obi Wan about how the political situation in Japan may effect the JMSDF and CVN-73 status in Japan.

As some of you know the left wing Japanese Democratic party have finally taken over their Government. they've recalled their ships in the Indian Ocean and will probably limit the Ise & Hyuga air wing to 4 SH-60s each. What a waste of ship. These same democrats were the ones making so much noise when the then in power government allowed CVN-73 to be homeported in Japan. I would not be surprised to see this present Japanese government to order CVN-73 and some of her escorts out of Japan. Despite the fact that an USN CV has been homeported in Japan since October 6th 1973.

We shall wait and see what happens.

..Yes I realize that the US 7th Fleet is a deterrent to "aggressors" in the Pacific.

Obi Wan Russell · 09-20-2009

It will be a great shame if things unfold as Popeye has said. Japan was starting to emerge from her post WW2 Isolation and beginning to take a more prominent role in world affairs (the ships depolyed to the Indian Ocean being a good example). I fear this reversal of policy may mean Japan retreating inwards for more than a decade or two, and the loss of a much valued ally in UN operations in the future.

bd popeye · 09-25-2009

The Keel has been laid for the AUSSIE LHD!!

Quote:

Navantia Lays Keel for the First LHD for Australia | News at DefenceTalk

Navantia Lays Keel for the First LHD for Australia
News — By Editor on September 25, 2009 at 5:19 am

Navantia has laid on 23th. September the keel for the LHD “Canberra” at the Ferrol shipyard. It is the first of the series of two that Australia contracted with Navantia in 2007.

The ceremony has been presided by the Chief of the Australian Navy, Admiral Russ Crane and by Aurelio Martínez, CEO of Navantia. Amongst other relevant attendants we must highlight the Deputy Premier of South Australia, Hon. Kevin Foley, the Australian Ambassador to Spain and members of the Spanish Navy.

This milestone consisted of the erection in slipway 3 of the 4 blocks of the keel (numbers 320, 322, 323 y 328) out of a total of 104 blocks. This ship was started exactly 12 months ago, and after this milestone, the ship will be launched in 18 months and it is expected to be commissioned to BAE Systems (Tenix in 2007). The second ship will be started in 2010 and will have the same sequence.

The design of these ships is based in the LHD “Juan Carlos I”, currently under construction for the Spanish Navy, and was selected over the French company Armaris offer, because it completely fitted the Royal Australian Navy requirements.

The contract reaches 1,411.6 million euros, being 915 million euros for Navantia, that includes the design and construction of the ships, as well as some equipment as engines and platform control system, that will be provided by Navantia. Both contracts mean a very important milestone for Navantia, as its biggest export operation in the history, reaching 1,200 million euros and will make of Navantia the reference naval designer and shipbuilder in the world.

Main characteristics:

* Length overall: 230.82 m
* Breadth maximum: 32 m
* Height flight deck: 27.50 m
* Full load displacement: 27,831 t
* Full load speed: 20.5 kn
* Range (@15 knots): 8,000 nautical miles
* Crew: 243 + 36 additional
* Embarked forces: 978 + 146 additional
* Hangar: 990 m2
* Flight deck: 4,750 m2
* Light cargo garage: 1,880 m2
* Heavy cargo garage: 1,410 m2

Ambivalent · 09-26-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Ambivalent, you must be in Miramar..

I was stationed there from July '85 to August 1991. Excluding the 6 months or so I spent on the Nimitz in '91. I worked in the Paraloft.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Through PM I was discussing with Obi Wan about how the political situation in Japan may effect the JMSDF and CVN-73 status in Japan.

As some of you know the left wing Japanese Democratic party have finally taken over their Government. they've recalled their ships in the Indian Ocean and will probably limit the Ise & Hyuga air wing to 4 SH-60s each. What a waste of ship. These same democrats were the ones making so much noise when the then in power government allowed CVN-73 to be homeported in Japan. I would not be surprised to see this present Japanese government to order CVN-73 and some of her escorts out of Japan. Despite the fact that an USN CV has been homeported in Japan since October 6th 1973.

We shall wait and see what happens.

..Yes I realize that the US 7th Fleet is a deterrent to "aggressors" in the Pacific.

Nope, no test and evaluation squadrons at Miramar.

Regarding those new "DDH's", well stuff happens in the deep blue sea where the politicians can't see and don't need to know. Cross decking happens. Patches are exchanged. Boxes checked on the PQS. Qualifications earned. All in a deployment. Those decks will feel the heat of an F-35 exhaust and the weight of a CH-53 landing gear. Governments come and go too while ships sail on.
There has always been a back up plan to put a CVN in Guam if the Japanese complained. Frankly I'm not anxious to see Japan develop it's military. I'd prefer they remained tied to the bare defense of Japan proper. Maybe when delegations of Japanese generals and admirals lay wreaths at the sites of their many atrocities, and make amends the way similar delegations of German military did, I will change my mind. Maybe too when the Japanese teach the truth in their schools. Did you know it is only in the past year that Japan began to try jury trials? This was a one party state with no right to a jury of one's peers at a trial, and one could be held for 21 or 23 ( can't remember ) days for questioning without a lawyer or charges being filed. There is a reason most Japanese convictions come from "confessions". I like to think my defense dollar is not defending the indefensible, but keeping close tabs on Japan instead.

bd popeye · 09-26-2009

Quote:

Nope, no test and evaluation squadrons at Miramar

Perhaps PAX River or China Lake?? My best guess without cheating..

Quote:

There has always been a back up plan to put a CVN in Guam if the Japanese complained.

True enough. I know the USN was studying putting an CVN in either Hawaii or Guam about two years ago.

Totoro · 09-27-2009

Japan's jury comment was out of place That made this into a political issue and this is not a forum for that. The moderators did not delete those paragraphs so one may be free to reply to such a claim. If not, and the moderators delete all the political paragraphs from all the messages, that will be fine too.

Japan is a sovereign country and it should be able to choose its judiciary system. MANY modern day democracies do not use jury of peers system. There are further nations which use it only partialy, seldomly or have a mix of jury of peers and jury of judges system. Google search for jury system will give one an idea of just how wide the options are for a judiciary system.

Also, many modern day democracies, including the united states, have laws that permit holding suspects for extended periods of time without trial, under the pretense of various needs, be they right or wrong. Fact remains such laws exist elsewere too, not just in japan, and they definitely are applied in the United states as well.

bd popeye · 09-27-2009

Quote:

Japan's jury comment was out of place That made this into a political issue and this is not a forum for that. The moderators did not delete those paragraphs so one may be free to reply to such a claim. If not, and the moderators delete all the political paragraphs from all the messages, that will be fine too.

True enough. I ignored those paragraphs. Totoro's post will be the last on any political situation in Japan. Let's return to the discussion of aircraft carriers.

bd popeye super moderator

bd popeye · 10-17-2009

An intresting read about the deal between the Russian and Indians over the ex-Gorshkov CV.

Too bad the US is unwilling to sell off it's retired CVs. $1.5 billion on re-fit for an Forrestal class would have turned out a first class ship for the IN.

Never Trust A Used Carrier Salesman

Quote:

Indian officers have admitted that they were partially at fault in the billion dollar aircraft carrier Gorshkov fiasco. It seems it was not all the fault of the Russians that the refurbishment of the decommissioned Russian carrier Gorshkov cost a billion dollars more, and took several years longer. The Indians admit that, when they signed the deal in 2004, they had not had engineers go over the Gorshkov, and agreed, after a cursory inspection, that many electrical and mechanical components, buried within the ships hull, were serviceable. It turned out that many of those components were not good-to-go, and had to be replaced, at great expense. Shortly after the contract was signed, the Russians discovered that the shipyard had misplaced the blueprints for the Gorshkov, and things went downhill from there.

After four years of haggling over Russian demands for more money, India agreed to pay about a billion dollars more, instead of the original (2004) agreed on $1.5 billion, for a Russian shipyard to refurbish an old, damaged, aircraft carrier (the Admiral Gorshkov) for Indian use. Last year, Russia threatened to give the Gorshkov back to the Russian Navy if the Indians didn't, come up with more money.

All this was a sad tale of bungling, corruption, greed and lost blueprints. Work on the 44,000 ton Gorshkov was about half completed, when it was supposed to have been delivered last year, and renamed the INS Vikramaditya. But now delivery has been delayed until 2012. The Russians admitted that this project suffered from inept planning, shoddy workmanship, and poor management, and they wanted India to pay for most of those mistakes. The Indians were not amused, and played hard ball, making much of the fact that India was now the biggest customer for Russian military exports. Russia was also aware that India was increasingly turning to more expensive (and more capable) Western arms suppliers.

The original price for the refurbishment of the of the Gorshkov was $1.5 billion. Building a Gorshkov type carrier today would cost about $4 billion, and take eight years. Two years ago, the Russians admitted there were problems, and demanded another half billion dollars to make it all right. India went along with that. But last year, the Russians raised the price again, and now wanted $3.5 billion for the job, and an additional four years. The Indians refused to pay.

The Russians were willing to admit to mistakes and put things right, for a price. For example, the boss of Sevmash naval shipyard, when the Gorshkov deal was negotiated, was fired and under criminal investigation, on suspicion of financial mismanagement.

Naturally, the Indians were not happy with all this, and at first insisted that the Russian government (which owns many of the entities involved) make good on the original deal. India sent its own team of technical experts to Russia, and their report apparently confirmed what the Russians reported, about shipyard officials low-balling the cost of the work needed. This is a common tactic for firms building weapons for their own country. It gets more complicated when you try to pull that sort of thing on a foreign customer. The Russian government initially offered to cover some of the overrun cost. But then they insisted that India cover most of it, or lose the ship entirely. Nothing was said about whether or not the Indians would get any of their money refunded. As Indian anger rose, the Russians began to realize that they would have to eat most of the additional mistakes, or risk losing billions in future sales.

The Admiral Gorshkov entered service in 1987, but was inactivated in 1996 because it was too expensive to operate on a post Cold War budget. This attracted the attention of India, which was looking for a way to expand their carrier aviation capabilities. India is currently building another carrier, from scratch, but that 40,000 ton vessel won't be ready until 2015. India's sole current aircraft carrier, the 29,000 ton INS Viraat, just emerged from 18 months in a shipyard getting maintenance and upgrades, which left India with no carrier capability. This was to have been avoided by the timely arrival (last year) of the refurbished Russian carrier. If that had happened, the INS Viraat would have been retired in 2012, after 53 years service (for Britain and India). But now the INS Viraat will get its engine and hull refurbished, and its electronics upgraded, and possibly serve for another decade.

Under the terms of the new deal, the INS Vikramaditya will be ready for sea trials by the end of 2012. Thus by 2015, India will have two large carriers in operation, and some bitter memories of their experience with the Russians over the Gorshkov.

bd popeye · 10-20-2009

The story above started a thread in another well know forum. The discussion finally got around to what if the IN could buy a Tarawa or Forrestal class and have it re-fit. I posted these drawings by Obi Wan.. Yes I gave credit to Obi Wan..

Question..On the Tarawa how would you modify the hangar to accommodate that forward lift? Would you use the well deck for aircraft hangar??

Of course Obi Wan you can join the conversation HERE as you are a member there.

bd popeye · 10-25-2009

Maybe I can get someone to comment on this article Obi Wan...The title is very misleading..The title should read.."JSF numbers cut in half". Please read and feel free to comment.

Quote:

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle

Navy surrenders one new aircraft carrier in budget battle - Times Online

The Royal Navy has agreed to sacrifice one of its two new aircraft carriers to save about £8.2 billion from the defence budget.

The admirals, who have battled for a decade to secure the two new 65,000-ton carriers, have been forced to back down because of the soaring cost of the American-produced Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft due to fly off them.

The move is a blow to the navy’s prestige and has come on the heels of Gordon Brown’s announcement last month that he was axing one of the navy’s four Trident nuclear deterrent submarines.

It is too late for the navy to renege on contracts to build the two carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, due to go into service in 2016, and the Prince of Wales, due to follow in 2018. Although the second carrier will be built, it will be used as an amphibious commando ship, with only helicopters on board instead of JSF aircraft.

The move will leave the navy without a carrier when the Queen Elizabeth goes into refit, leaving open the possibility that it might have to borrow one from the French navy. In a meeting with Brown last year, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, had suggested that refits of French and British aircraft carriers should be co-ordinated.

The decision to have only one new aircraft carrier will cut the number of JSFs to be flown by RAF squadrons from 138 to about 50, saving £7.6 billion. At current prices, the aircraft will cost close to £90m each, but this could rise to more than £100m.

Using the Prince of Wales as a commando ship will save a further £600m, the amount that would have been needed to replace the amphibious landing ship Ocean, which is due to go out of service in 2018.

The decision to cut the number of JSF aircraft has been agreed by senior navy and air force commanders in discussions preparing for the strategic defence review.

Both Labour and the Conservatives are committed to conducting a strategic defence review after the general election, which must be held by the late spring.

A senior Royal Navy officer said: “We always knew that the real cost of the carrier project is the JSF fleet to go on them. It would cost us at least £12 billion if we bought all the aircraft we originally asked for. We are waking up to the fact that all those planes are unaffordable. More than half of the £5 billion contracts to build the two new carriers have been contracted, so it is too late to get out of building the ships. This way at least we are covered when Ocean goes out of service.”

Since both aircraft carriers will still be built, there are unlikely to be job losses at the Rosyth ship yards, close to Brown’s constituency. The JSF aircraft are being built in Fort Worth, Texas, with the involvement of BAE Systems.

The RAF, which had been due to replace its Tornado aircraft with the JSF, will now equip all its frontline squadrons with Eurofighter aircraft instead.

The Conservatives said any decision to axe a carrier would be “absolutely unacceptable” and typical of the government’s “chaotic, inconsistent and incompetent defence procurement policy”.

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said the move exposed the government’s claim that it wanted a completely independent strategic defence review. “The government is saying it is fully committed to the carriers while at the same time forcing them to be cut,” he said.

“It is confusing for the navy, it is confusing for industry and it is completely inconsistent with the whole concept of running an independent defence review.”

The Ministry of Defence said Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, remained 100% committed to the carriers but “financial circumstances mean some difficult decisions will have to be taken to prioritise our forces’ efforts in Afghanistan”.

The Royal Navy currently has three smaller 20,600-ton carriers: Illustrious, Ark Royal and Invincible. Illustrious is on a visit to Liverpool. Invincible has already been mothballed.

Jeff Head · 10-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

Maybe I can get someone to comment on this articl;e Obi Wan...The title is very misleading..The title should read.."JSF numbers cut in half". Please read and feel free to comment.

This seems odd and out of kilter.

As to the Royal Navy not having a carrier when the QE II goes into refit, if they build both, then they could simply transfer the JSFs to the Prince of Wales at that time.

It would mean significant changes in trainging and operational duties when they were both available...but they could certainly work it out perhaps with two sets of aviators so the one set could get training and upkeep while "their" carrier was in refit...but it could certainly be done.

Still, if you build both carriers, it seems clear to me that you maximize the use of both as carriers.

Obi Wan Russell · 10-25-2009

The story is a non story written by someone who knows nothing about defence matters. Before this announcement the plan was to build two aircraft carriers and an initial buy of about 50 or 60 F-35Bs. Then this story comes out and... NOTHING has changed. Except the Navy has apparently pulled off a masterstroke of spin by sacrificing nothing and yet making it look like they have made a mjor sacrifice! Keeps the treasury happy! It was alsways intended to use the CVFs in the LPH role from time to time. Just as this capability was included in the Invincible class. Heck even the USN's CV/CVN force has this capability (I recall Kitty Hawk acting as a mega LPH in the Gulf war...) The only specific equipment aboard the CVFs to suit them to F-35B operation is the ski jump, which is a simple and cheap steel construction, and omitting it from HMS Prince of Wales has not been mentioned, nor suggested. As to borrowing a carrier off the French, as they only have one to start with and it is nuclear powered (it's reactor is a different design to those on RN subs), this idea is a non starter. Current financial problems will not last forever, and to make sacrifices in ten years time to rectify todays problems makes no sense. Take this story with a pinch of salt

bd popeye · 10-25-2009

I'd knew I'd shake you two gents out of your slumber with that story. I found this story at mp.net.

What a crock. A story written by the "Navally Challenged".

Obi Wan.. When the current "financial crisis" eases in the UK do you feel that MoD will attempt to purchase more aircrfat for the CVFs? Or could the possibly keep the Harriers in service a little longer? I realize they have been around for 35+ years. Another thought..Will some agreement between the MoD and US DoD bring USMC F-35Bs on the CVF's from time to time for deployments?? Or perhaps more often than that?? Maybe a little basing of USMC F-35s in the UK?

Obi Wan Russell · 10-25-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bd popeye

I'd knew I'd shake you two gents out of your slumber with that story. I found this story at mp.net.

What a crock. A story written by the "Navally Challenged".

Obi Wan.. When the current "financial crisis" eases in the UK do you feel that MoD will attempt to purchase more aircrfat for the CVFs? Or could the possibly keep the Harriers in service a little longer? I realize they have been around for 35+ years. Another thought..Will some agreement between the MoD and US DoD bring USMC F-35Bs on the CVF's from time to time for deployments?? Or perhaps more often than that?? Maybe a little basing of USMC F-35s in the UK?

The plan was always for the RN to have one CVF as the 'ready alert' carrier available at all times, with the second available for deployment soon after if needed. Just as we do now with Lusty and Ark. The JFH sqns currently operate around 9 aircraft, this will increase to 12 when the lightnings enter service. So two FAA sqns of 12 gives an air group of 24 FJs, with room for another (RAF)sqn to deploy when needed. Additionally the air group will include a sqn of six Merlins for ASW/SAR and three to four AEW types (currently Sea King ASaC7, possibly a converted Merlin model in the 2020s). There will definately be room for a USMC sqn aboard (I prefer this to the RAF, who will probably find something better for their sqns to do most of the time). So we have the potential for a truly mixed, flexible and varied strike force on the decks of the Carriers. Generating an air group for the second carrier will not be a big problem either, there will be a second AEW sqn available, an ASW sqn, and the FJ force can be a mix of USMC/RAF/Spanish Navy/Italian Navy as avaiable, depending on the composition of the task force.

Alternatively, the second carrier can be deployed in the 'mega-LPH' role, onboard which anything from Chinooks and Ospreys to Apaches can be deployed, types which can be provided by more than just the UK. Imagine a joint task force headed by a couple of USN Carrier strike groups and an RN CVF strike group, a mix of other Nation's FFs and DDGs and an Amphibious group headed by a mix of Wasp class LHDs, The Spanish JC1 and a CVF with a mix of helos and USMC F-35Bs (concentrated on the CVF because of the ski jump, the cuisine and the ahem, enhanced relaxation facilities aboard RN ships) leaving the USN ships to concetrate on the helos and troops. I think the future is still bright, and joint operations are still the way forward. We all need to bring complementary capabilities to the table, and I believe we shall do just that.

SinoDefence Forum

Aircraft Carriers II

Aircraft Carriers II

DefenceTalk Military Pictures

LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/aircraft-carriers-ii-3125.html

vBulletin Tweet Poster