Tough to get a good flat top

[Pearson]

We bought the subs...wonder if they will take them back on trade?

Next purchase??
Think this would have a positive affect on enlistment?

By CORINNE ABRAMS
Sun Online

ROYAL Navy aircraft carrier HMS Invincible today docked for the last time before it is to be decommissioned.

Dignitaries and 250 family members of the ship's company watched as the vessel, one of three Royal Navy carriers, arrived at Portsmouth Naval base.

News of the 22,000 tonne warship's retirement prompted concerns that the senior service would be over-streched.

A collection of Sea Harriers, Sea King helicopters, the Lynx Pairs Display Team and RAF Chinook helicopter took part in a flypast as Invincible entered the Hampshire harbour.

Captain Neil Morisetti, Invincible's commanding officer, said: "These events provide an excellent opportunity for HMS Invincible to celebrate not only her 25 years of service but also the hard work and dedication shown by members of the ship's company past and present, and the continued support given by their families throughout her long and distinguished career."

Invincible is being taken out of service six months early, a move critics
suggest is a cost-cutting operation to fund the on-going Iraq war.

This leaves the Navy with HMS Illustrious as its only aircraft carrier in
operational service while Ark Royal undergoes a major refit due to be completed at the end of next year.

The navy intends to replace its aircraft carriers in 2012 with a new
generation of warships.

Following the de-commissioning, Invincible will be handed over to the MoD's Disposal and Reserve Ships Organisation which will mothball it until it is sold in 2010.

Invincible was launched by the Queen in 1977 and, during its deployment in the Falklands war, the Duke of York was based on board as a Sea King helicopter pilot.

It underwent a £64million refit in 2001 and acted as the Royal Navy's flagship in June's International Fleet Review

 

[viper3ca]

I think a ship like invincilble is just what our navy needs!While a new ship like Italy's new carrier would be ideal along with an lpd like Spains Galicia class, it would take years to build these ships.Invincible with 12 med-lift troop transport hellicopters 8 harrier II's leased from the states would give our navy and army more of what they need now.It would also be a big boost for moral and recruitment.What do you think?   

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think a ship like invincilble is just what our navy needs!While a new ship like Italy's new carrier would be ideal along with an lpd like Spains Galicia class, it would take years to build these ships.Invincible with 12 med-lift troop transport hellicopters 8 harrier II's leased from the states would give our navy and army more of what they need now.It would also be a big boost for moral and recruitment.What do you think?    

Where are you going to get the sailors to man it? Then comes the problem of protecting the CVL, because the only place you will get the sailors is from the rest of the fleet. Carriers are out of our league folks...its gonna be hard enough to get bodies for the LPD that the CDS want to get, let alone a dedicated carrier. In the Navy forum this has been discussed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Where are you going to get the sailors to man it? Then comes the problem of protecting the CVL, because the only place you will get the sailors is from the rest of the fleet. Carriers are out of our league folks...its gonna be hard enough to get bodies for the LPD that the CDS want to get, let alone a dedicated carrier. In the Navy forum this has been discussed.

Hey Ex-Dragoon, do you have that on tape?  It seems to me I've heard it somewhere before. ;D

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hey Ex-Dragoon, do you have that on tape?   It seems to me I've heard it somewhere before. ;D

Yup.....$9.95 and you can have your very own CD of Ex-Dragoon trying to wake people up to the realities of carriers and the Canadian Navy.

 

[Hatless Dancer]

I concur, we don't have the sailors for the frigates we have now. What Canada needs more than anything are heavy lift transports. C 17s, or IL 76s(the ones with the NATO spec engines and avionics). Bonneventure 2 we dont need.

 

[Kirkhill]

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1290/printArticle.htmlri

Then there is this:

160 Million Australian dollars (150 Million Canadian)
38,000 tonnes
28 Crew

23,000 Lane-Meters at 20+ knots

Vanguard Task Force Transport Requirement 7500 lane-meters

1 Tamesis will carry a full Task Force with just 3 of its 8 decks

1 JSS 1500 Lane-meters (2500 with no helicopter operations)
3 JSS 4500 Lane-meters (7500 with no helicopter operations)
Total Cost  2100 Million Canadian.

3 JSS to transport a full Task Force

1 C17 ~60 Lane Meters
200 Million Canadian each

125 trips to transport a full Task Force with at least one stop for refuelling on both the outbound and return leg.  500 Take-offs and landings.

1 Tamesis (or smaller variant) less than the price of one C-17.  Entire unit shows up ready to unload anywhere in two weeks.  A few dollars left over for some comfy beds, a hangar for a helicopter or two and possibly even a beer fridge.

Tamesis, built to civilian standards, a floating warehouse.  Not an amphibious assault ship.  However room enough to strap on a radar, some Phalanxes and possibly a SeaSparrow if deemed absolutely necessary.  That and a couple of FastCat type catamarans Canada can deploy easily.

At very low prices.

The C-17 won't go any further forward than an asset like the Tamesis is likely to go for the same reasons - too big a target and too expensive.

 

[Kirkhill]

Then there's what the Aussies are looking at: 2 Billion Dollars (Aus) for 2 all-singing/all-dancing vessels (Command/Hotel/Hospital/Hangar/Transport)
(Apologies for the foreign language links but you should be able to puzzle out the numbers)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

http://www.defense.gouv.fr/sites/marine/decouverte/materiels/batiments_de_combat/bpc_type_mistral/mistral
http://www.armada.mde.es/esp/ElFuturo/BuqueProyeccionEstrategica/FichaTecnica.asp?SecAct=05202

They are also looking at carrying some of their F-35/JSFs in the STOVL configuration

Royal Australian Navy plans two new aircraft capable amphibious ships
Daily Telegraph Australia ^ | March 14, 2005


Posted on 03/14/2005 7:41:05 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki


Navy planning for two new aircraft carriers

March 14, 2005

SECRET discussions have been held with ship builders about equipping two large new Australian warships with fighter aircraft.

The Royal Australian Navy plans to buy two $800 million, 25,000 tonne amphibious ships by 2010.

A push is under way to give the vessels the capacity to carry eight or more so-called short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighters.

The aircraft would cost about $6 million more than the $70 million price tag for the conventional joint strike fighters (JSF) being purchased for the RAAF.

The Government wants to buy up to 100 of the yet to be built next generation fighters in a $15 billion project.

According to industry sources there would be no problem having the final 20 or so coming off the STOVL production line.

Such a move would give the RAN an aircraft carrier capability for the first time since HMAS Melbourne was retired in 1982.

Two designs are being considered for the ship contract.

The already built Mistral Class from the French partnership of DCN-Armaris and the BPE from Spain's navy shipbuilder Navantia which will be built in late 2008.

It is understood the talks have focused on issues such as deck strength and space for the aircraft.

Defence stressed that there was no "existing" plan to equip the ships to carry STOVL aircraft.

"The STOVL JSF is not included in the DCP [Defence Capability Plan]," a defence spokesman said.

However The Daily Telegraph has been told that discussions have been held with at least one builder about requirements to operate STOVL versions of the JSF.

"There is a small group in [the] navy pushing for some form of STOVL capability on the ships," a well placed source said.

"They want to buy about 20 STOVL versions of the JSF to provide extended military reach."

As somebody else pointed out: it is not the boat that costs the money, nor even requires a large crew to sail her, it is what you put in her. 

If all the CF wants is a barge for transporting gear, that can be done cheaply.  If they want to add other capabilities to her that puts up the price which in turn reduces the number of hulls which in turn reduces operational flexibility.

Which really costs less?

3-4  All singing/All dancing JSS

or

3 Smaller AORs (with no transport capability and no Landing craft or command facilities, some helo capabilities), 1 small command ship with helo, and 2 transport ships with austere accomodations capable of landing helos.

3-4 JSS = 2.1 BCAD

2 ATS -        (Bay Class Enforcer to Tamesis Mega Transporter range of options) = 150 MCAD to 300 MCAD and 25 to 50 crew
1 Cmd Ship    (like NZ MRV) Less than 500 MNZD - the Kiwis are buying their MRV (Command, Transport, Helo, Hospital, Hotel), 2 1500 tonne Corvette type OPVs and 4 300 Tonne Patrol Boat type IPVs    for that.  Lets say 250 MCAD for a Canadian Version with 53 crew, 10 air det, ~300 others.
3 AORs        the Aussies are handling their AOR requirements for about 50 MCAD (used) and the Brits are handling theirs for about 200 MCAD for a 31000 tonne AOR (Wave Rider Class) with 110 crew
                    Lets allow 150 MCAD for 3x 20,000


400 to 750 MCAD for Transport/Warehousing and Command/Hospital/Helo support.
450 MCAD for AORs

850 to 1200 MCAD capital costs
400 to 500 crew

Operating allowance = JSS project 2100 MCAD - above capital costs = 900 to 1250 MCAD. 

Similar costs, perhaps marginally higher, but significantly more operational capability and flexibility.