Aircraft Carriers III

Jura The idiot · Mar 30, 2017

according to NavyTimes
Three-stars: Marine, naval aviators and maintainers endure diminished flight hours, lack of spare parts
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pilots and maintainers just want do their jobs, but readiness shortfalls are stopping them.

That was the message from the three-star heads of Marine Corps and Navy personnel during a Capitol Hill hearing Wednesday. The hearing was meant to address competition for trained pilots from the private industry, an issue that has bled the Air Force of a number of pilots.

The Navy and Marine Corps have had fewer issues with losing pilots to private airlines but both officers say there is a growing frustration with the lack of flying hours for pilots and critical spare parts for maintainers, a byproduct of the last several years of budget cuts.

That’s something that is beginning to eat away at retention, said Vice Adm. Robert Burke, chief of naval personnel.

“Naval aviators have expressed dissatisfaction with quality of service resulting from readiness challenges associated with limited aircraft availability and reduced flying hours while not deployed, which have inhibited timely attainment of tactical qualifications and subsequent career progression,” Burke said in his opening statement.

Burke said he’s seen some shortfalls in department heads — typically O-4s — in the electronic attack, strike fighter and helicopter mine countermeasure communities, and also among post-command officers — typically O-5s up for promotion to captain. The Navy is examining adjusting the bonuses to sweeten the pot for those officers, he said.

Marine Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs Lt. Gen. Mark Brilakis echoed that sentiment, saying that while some bonuses are opening up for the first time since 2011, the retention concerns he has are related to reduced readiness.

A recent survey conducted inside the aviation community showed rising frustration on the part of aviators and maintainers. The frustrations with readiness shortfalls have been compounded by a crushing 2:1 dwell ration.

“It’s not about money, it’s about doing what they came into the Marine Corps to do, which is to fly airplanes, to fix airplanes and serve those aircraft,” Brilakis said. “They want more time to fly, they want more parts to fix, and they’d like a little more time at home.”

Both Burke and Brilakis said the shortfalls would dramatically increase if Congress is unable to reach a budget agreement for 2017, which would trigger severe cutbacks in flight hours and maintenance by late spring.

and I watched
Navy says over half of its air fleet can't fly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Obi Wan Russell · Mar 30, 2017

One or two people have asked me about the twenty year lifespan of HMS Ocean as well as current manning issues, so I thought it worth clarifying:

Twenty years was the originally stated lifespan of the ship in the 1990s, in the same way as the type 23 Frigates were designed for an 18 year lifespan. This does NOT mean the will go POP at midnight on their 18th birthday, any more than Ocean will deflate and disappear on her 20th. Back in the 90s the RN realised with far fewer orders for warships in the future there was a need to maintain a rolling programme of construction to remain viable. Previously a warship would be retained for around thirty years, but would need a major refit halfway through that life. The expensive part of a warship is not the hull but the weapons and sensors. Retrofitting new systems into older hulls was almost as expensive as building new ships, and produced inferior results as the refitted ship was a less than ideal platform for said new systems and had a much shorter remaining life.

So instead of blowing large sums rebuilding older hulls the logical conclusion was that it would be better to run a surface warship for about two decades and when it reached obsolescence, replace it with a new hull to carry the new technology. Hence the T23s 18 year lifespan and Ocean's 20 year lifespan. Of course the politicians could be counted on to screw things up as usual, by not playing ball and not ordering the replacement ships on time, driving up costs all round as the T23s have had to receive the mid life refits they were built to avoid which has had the knock on effect of soaking up money that should have gone into the T26 class, which are delayed again and again purely for financial reasons as the government haggles over the price (a tactic they frequently use to put off having to stump up cash in the short term). Ultimately the price goes up and we end up paying far more than we should have in the first place.

As to Ocean, her design was truly bargain basement in order to secure the order. Commercial spec yes, but the bottom line is we got a commando carrier for the price of a Frigate. Many of her internal systems were notoriously under-specced, and have in fact been replaced at subsequent refits. The ship today is by no means worn out or on her last legs. Any country that bought her could easily get another twenty years out of that hull, so long as the look after her right. She's relatively cheap to run and uncomplicated, so should prove attractive to potential buyers.

The manpower issue for the RN is a very serious problem true. I constantly hear people saying where will the RN find a crew for the Queen Elizabeth? Well you'll find them aboard her right now, where they have been in increasing numbers for a couple of years now. As of January she had at least 650 of her 679 complement aboard, and the missing 30 or so were serving exchange postings with the USN aboard their carriers, mostly in the air operations departments and deck crew, so their absence would not affect the ship putting to sea for sea trials in any way. The seconds ship, Prince of Wales, currently has between 200-250 of her crew assigned to her, and these numbers will increase steadily over the next couple of years before she starts her sea trials. In 2018 another 250 or so sailors will become available for her crew when Ocean is paid off.

The roots of the current manpower problem go back many years and have many easily identifiable causes and solutions, which I don't need to cover here. The chief cause of the current crisis can though be laid squarely at the door of George Osbourne and David Cameron, and their disastrous 2010 SDSR, which cut 5000 personnel each from the Navy and RAF, and thousands more from the Army. These were people we needed badly, they weren't just stood around picking up a wage for doing nothing. They were highly skilled individuals who were vital to the armed forces (unlike Cameron and Osbourne) and replacing them is proving to be a painful process.

The QECs will be fully manned. Any shortfall will happen elsewhere sadly. There's nobody left over to man Ocean and no political will to retain her, especially as the Navy has repeatedly told the Government that the QECs will inherit the role and capability (in order to bolster the case for continuing with the QECs). At this point the only justification for retaining Ocean after 2018 would be to take over from RFA Argus, a much older ship also built to commercial specs, but given Argus specialist fit as a 'hospital' ship it wouldn't be a straightforward changeover, so don't hold your breath on that.

Miragedriver · Mar 30, 2017

Obi Wan Russell said:
One or two people have asked me about the twenty year lifespan of HMS Ocean as well as current manning issues, so I thought it worth clarifying:

Twenty years was the originally stated lifespan of the ship in the 1990s, in the same way as the type 23 Frigates were designed for an 18 year lifespan. This does NOT mean the will go POP at midnight on their 18th birthday, any more than Ocean will deflate and disappear on her 20th. Back in the 90s the RN realised with far fewer orders for warships in the future there was a need to maintain a rolling programme of construction to remain viable. Previously a warship would be retained for around thirty years, but would need a major refit halfway through that life. The expensive part of a warship is not the hull but the weapons and sensors. Retrofitting new systems into older hulls was almost as expensive as building new ships, and produced inferior results as the refitted ship was a less than ideal platform for said new systems and had a much shorter remaining life.View attachment 37380

So instead of blowing large sums rebuilding older hulls the logical conclusion was that it would be better to run a surface warship for about two decades and when it reached obsolescence, replace it with a new hull to carry the new technology. Hence the T23s 18 year lifespan and Ocean's 20 year lifespan. Of course the politicians could be counted on to screw things up as usual, by not playing ball and not ordering the replacement ships on time, driving up costs all round as the T23s have had to receive the mid life refits they were built to avoid which has had the knock on effect of soaking up money that should have gone into the T26 class, which are delayed again and again purely for financial reasons as the government haggles over the price (a tactic they frequently use to put off having to stump up cash in the short term). Ultimately the price goes up and we end up paying far more than we should have in the first place.

As to Ocean, her design was truly bargain basement in order to secure the order. Commercial spec yes, but the bottom line is we got a commando carrier for the price of a Frigate. Many of her internal systems were notoriously under-specced, and have in fact been replaced at subsequent refits. The ship today is by no means worn out or on her last legs. Any country that bought her could easily get another twenty years out of that hull, so long as the look after her right. She's relatively cheap to run and uncomplicated, so should prove attractive to potential buyers.
View attachment 37379
The manpower issue for the RN is a very serious problem true. I constantly hear people saying where will the RN find a crew for the Queen Elizabeth? Well you'll find them aboard her right now, where they have been in increasing numbers for a couple of years now. As of January she had at least 650 of her 679 complement aboard, and the missing 30 or so were serving exchange postings with the USN aboard their carriers, mostly in the air operations departments and deck crew, so their absence would not affect the ship putting to sea for sea trials in any way. The seconds ship, Prince of Wales, currently has between 200-250 of her crew assigned to her, and these numbers will increase steadily over the next couple of years before she starts her sea trials. In 2018 another 250 or so sailors will become available for her crew when Ocean is paid off. View attachment 37381

The roots of the current manpower problem go back many years and have many easily identifiable causes and solutions, which I don't need to cover here. The chief cause of the current crisis can though be laid squarely at the door of George Osbourne and David Cameron, and their disastrous 2010 SDSR, which cut 5000 personnel each from the Navy and RAF, and thousands more from the Army. These were people we needed badly, they weren't just stood around picking up a wage for doing nothing. They were highly skilled individuals who were vital to the armed forces (unlike Cameron and Osbourne) and replacing them is proving to be a painful process.

The QECs will be fully manned. Any shortfall will happen elsewhere sadly. There's nobody left over to man Ocean and no political will to retain her, especially as the Navy has repeatedly told the Government that the QECs will inherit the role and capability (in order to bolster the case for continuing with the QECs). At this point the only justification for retaining Ocean after 2018 would be to take over from RFA Argus, a much older ship also built to commercial specs, but given Argus specialist fit as a 'hospital' ship it wouldn't be a straightforward changeover, so don't hold your breath on that.View attachment 37382

A very logical program to keep the domestic ship building industry alive and not have years of booms and busts. It keeps skilled labor in the nation. Plus the residual value of the vessel on the open market (to friendly nations) helps offset the cost.

Well written explanation Obi Wan!

Jura The idiot · Mar 30, 2017

Obi Wan Russell said:
One or two people have asked me about the twenty year lifespan of HMS Ocean as well as current manning issues, so I thought it worth clarifying:

Twenty years was the originally stated lifespan of the ship in the 1990s, in the same way as the type 23 Frigates were designed for an 18 year lifespan. This does NOT mean the will go POP at midnight on their 18th birthday, any more than Ocean will deflate and disappear on her 20th. Back in the 90s the RN realised with far fewer orders for warships in the future there was a need to maintain a rolling programme of construction to remain viable. Previously a warship would be retained for around thirty years, but would need a major refit halfway through that life. The expensive part of a warship is not the hull but the weapons and sensors. Retrofitting new systems into older hulls was almost as expensive as building new ships, and produced inferior results as the refitted ship was a less than ideal platform for said new systems and had a much shorter remaining life.View attachment 37380

So instead of blowing large sums rebuilding older hulls the logical conclusion was that it would be better to run a surface warship for about two decades and when it reached obsolescence, replace it with a new hull to carry the new technology. Hence the T23s 18 year lifespan and Ocean's 20 year lifespan. Of course the politicians could be counted on to screw things up as usual, by not playing ball and not ordering the replacement ships on time, driving up costs all round as the T23s have had to receive the mid life refits they were built to avoid which has had the knock on effect of soaking up money that should have gone into the T26 class, which are delayed again and again purely for financial reasons as the government haggles over the price (a tactic they frequently use to put off having to stump up cash in the short term). Ultimately the price goes up and we end up paying far more than we should have in the first place.

As to Ocean, her design was truly bargain basement in order to secure the order. Commercial spec yes, but the bottom line is we got a commando carrier for the price of a Frigate. Many of her internal systems were notoriously under-specced, and have in fact been replaced at subsequent refits. The ship today is by no means worn out or on her last legs. Any country that bought her could easily get another twenty years out of that hull, so long as the look after her right. She's relatively cheap to run and uncomplicated, so should prove attractive to potential buyers.
View attachment 37379
The manpower issue for the RN is a very serious problem true. I constantly hear people saying where will the RN find a crew for the Queen Elizabeth? Well you'll find them aboard her right now, where they have been in increasing numbers for a couple of years now. As of January she had at least 650 of her 679 complement aboard, and the missing 30 or so were serving exchange postings with the USN aboard their carriers, mostly in the air operations departments and deck crew, so their absence would not affect the ship putting to sea for sea trials in any way. The seconds ship, Prince of Wales, currently has between 200-250 of her crew assigned to her, and these numbers will increase steadily over the next couple of years before she starts her sea trials. In 2018 another 250 or so sailors will become available for her crew when Ocean is paid off. View attachment 37381

The roots of the current manpower problem go back many years and have many easily identifiable causes and solutions, which I don't need to cover here. The chief cause of the current crisis can though be laid squarely at the door of George Osbourne and David Cameron, and their disastrous 2010 SDSR, which cut 5000 personnel each from the Navy and RAF, and thousands more from the Army. These were people we needed badly, they weren't just stood around picking up a wage for doing nothing. They were highly skilled individuals who were vital to the armed forces (unlike Cameron and Osbourne) and replacing them is proving to be a painful process.

The QECs will be fully manned. Any shortfall will happen elsewhere sadly. There's nobody left over to man Ocean and no political will to retain her, especially as the Navy has repeatedly told the Government that the QECs will inherit the role and capability (in order to bolster the case for continuing with the QECs). At this point the only justification for retaining Ocean after 2018 would be to take over from RFA Argus, a much older ship also built to commercial specs, but given Argus specialist fit as a 'hospital' ship it wouldn't be a straightforward changeover, so don't hold your breath on that.View attachment 37382

I somehow missed in your post an explanation of "a £65m refit of HMS Ocean"

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

in 2014 = four years before scrapping

Obi Wan Russell · Mar 30, 2017

Jura said:
I somehow missed in your post an explanation of "a £65m refit of HMS Ocean"
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2014 = four years before scrapping

Without the refit she would have been unfit to serve the next four years. £65 Million is pretty cheap for a 20,000 tonne warship these days, especially one that would be the fleet flagship during that period. And clearly the ship wasn't supposed to be 'scrapped' at the end of these four years, she was intended to be fit for further service, either with the RN if the new carriers were delayed or with a foreign buyer if needed. She was supposed to be in top condition right to the end of her service with the RN, not limping back into port on her last legs to be paid off. A ship being 'paid off' or decommissioned is by no means the same as one being scrapped, and the latter term has never been officially used to describer the fate of HMS Ocean after 2018. I'd imagine negotiations are underway between the UK MOD and the Brazilian Government for a possible 'hot transfer' or even a short refit in the UK before transferring to the Brazilian Navy. They are good customers of ours, four type 22s, an LSL and three OPVs being our major sales in recent times.

Air Force Brat · Mar 30, 2017

Jeff Head said:
As I said on he other thread...

I agree...it is a shame that she is so late.

at the same time, I know womsehting of the new technologies they are rolling into this ship.

Like with the Zumwalt, if it takes a little lnger for the US Navy to field the types of break through and league leading technologies she will ultimately make profcient, I am okay with her beiong late. It's not like any iof the Nimitz class are about to break down within a couple of years.

I expect it is going to take the GRF longer to commission and longer to reach IOC and FOC too...becuase they have to lern to apply and use all of this new stuff...and that is fine too.

It means that the JFK and Enterprise and the other follow ons will be that much more proficient at the game changing things she brings.

Still...sad to see it take so long because I am excited about seeing her go to sea, aboyt being commissioned, and about reaching operational capability.

But...as I say, when you are changing the rules and the technologies, its is hard to predict how long it takes, and new tech like this costs more and brings difficulties they have never dealt with before.

Once they get it down, Ingals will chrun them out just ike she did the Nmitz class

@test bd @kwaigonegin @bd popeye popeye @Obi Wan Russell @Air Force Brat

I agree, I'm not worried about the time, just kinda anxious! time is a relevant commodity, that's one thing we got plenty of?? LOL just have to make the best use of it to stay ahead of the "Joneses", LOL

Jura The idiot · Mar 30, 2017

Obi Wan Russell said:
... A ship being 'paid off' or decommissioned is by no means the same as one being scrapped, and the latter term has never been officially used to describer the fate of HMS Ocean after 2018. ...

LOL my English failed me again?

my top-two hit of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

google-search:
27. 11. 2015 U.K. Royal Navy Making Plans to Scrap Flagship HMS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"Ocean The U.K. Royal Navy flagship — the amphibious assault ship HMS Ocean (L12) — is slated for scraping in 2018, the U.K. Ministry of Defence confirmed this week. ..."

Obi Wan Russell · Mar 30, 2017

Jura said:
LOL my English failed me again?

my top-two hit of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

google-search:
27. 11. 2015 U.K. Royal Navy Making Plans to Scrap Flagship HMS
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
"Ocean The U.K. Royal Navy flagship — the amphibious assault ship HMS Ocean (L12) — is slated for scraping in 2018, the U.K. Ministry of Defence confirmed this week. ..."

Again the term is being confused. The British Media commonly uses the term scrapped to mean a project is cancelled or something is ended. This can be very misleading as to the final intention of the ship's fate. There has been no statement to the effect that Ocean would be sent to the Breakers Yard immediately after leaving RN service, and the term 'Scrapped' is often used in an emotive sense by the media in order to generate more interest in such a story. UK news outlets (including the BBC) generally use the term Scrapped when anyone else would say cancelled, e.g. 'Plans for a new hospital have been scrapped.' It's just another quirk of how the English use the English language.

Although the UK Government sends far too many warships to the Breakers yard before their time as a rule, if they think there is a possibility of a sale as a going concern they will grasp it with both hands. Selling a second hand warship doesn't in itself generate much money for the Treasury, it does however generate ongoing maintenance and support contracts for UK businesses and thus boosts tax revenues.

Air Force Brat · Mar 30, 2017

Miragedriver said:
A very logical program to keep the domestic ship building industry alive and not have years of booms and busts. It keeps skilled labor in the nation. Plus the residual value of the vessel on the open market (to friendly nations) helps offset the cost.

Well written explanation Obi Wan!

Indeed its a brilliant write up, and I so happy to have you both back aboard at full steam ahead, keep praying for our brother Jeff and perhaps the Lord will restore him to "seaworthy status" as well,,, love you guys, proud of you guys, every one of you, specially you naval guys, I have learned so much,,,

sadly the most important thing I have learned is that I'm not quite as smart as I thought I was??? dang???

Miragedriver · Mar 30, 2017

Air Force Brat said:
Indeed its a brilliant write up, and I so happy to have you both back aboard at full steam ahead, keep praying for our brother Jeff and perhaps the Lord will restore him to "seaworthy status" as well,,, love you guys, proud of you guys, every one of you, specially you naval guys, I have learned so much,,,

sadly the most important thing I have learned is that I'm not quite as smart as I thought I was??? dang???

You’re just like me AFB. People say I’m intelligent. Personally I don’t see it since I doubt myself and second guess.

Aircraft Carriers III

Jura The idiot

General

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master

Miragedriver

Brigadier

Jura The idiot

General

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master

Air Force Brat

Brigadier

Jura The idiot

General

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master

Air Force Brat

Brigadier

Miragedriver

Brigadier