("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED)

... Navy!!) had to be 'protected' by French carriers.... with their fixed-wing AWACS planes... planes that the RN's planned new (& its present) carriers can not/won't be capable of using...

A good example of these types of planes can be found at-

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/e-2d.htm

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3714.html

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

Note the text:

"... In 1982 the Falklands (Malvinas) conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support"...

".... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/idr/idr060630_1_n.shtml

Would the under testing weapons system described at the link below take-out a copter-borne AWACS or a high-flying, comparatively fast fixed-wing aircraft-borne AWACS easier??:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/idr/idr080612_1_n.shtml :

A summary of the UK's carrier folly can by found at links below.... the pages they link to also have useful links to reputable background material...

- RN aircraft carrier aircraft-type issue:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/19/supersonic_stealth_jumpjet_f35b_rollout/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/19/supersonic_stealth_jumpjet_f35b_rollout/page2.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/20/v22_osprey_engine_life_snag_and_toss_radar/ :

note the text:

".... Ever since the Falklands - where the lack of a flying radar was a major factor in the UK taskforce's heavy losses to Argentine air attack - the RN has struggled along with an unsatisfactory helicopter-mounted solution..."

"... Helicopters can't get

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #2)

... as high or stay up as long as ordinary planes, & an airborne radar needs both height & endurance..."

"... Britain's new aircraft carriers, though easily big enough, will not be equipped to launch & recover regular fixed-wing planes. This is so as to save money...."

"Unfortunately, it means that Blighty must buy exceedingly complex & expensive aircraft to fly from the ships, such as the new F-35B supersonic stealth jumpjet...."

"... & the RN, needing to replace its current, aged radar Sea Kings, would probably rather have Ospreys than another unsatisfactory helicopter....

"... They'd probably really rather have a much better E-2D Hawkeye carrier-radar plane for a fraction of the price, but the decision to buy slightly cheaper carriers (NOT NUCLEAR POWERED; WITHOUT BASIC, INDUSTRY-STANDARD DEFENSIVE WEAPONS SYSTEMS; AND WITHOUT CATAPULTS, r.v.l.) rules that out...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3460ee22-8582-4dab-8eda-8a4c183dbd40 :

Note the text:

".... As for shipboard operations: when the UK decided in 1998 to build a second (class of- r.v.l.) carrier, their Lordships in the Admiralty were thinking of a 40,000-tonner, something about twice the size of today's Invincible-class. But they soon found that to sustain independent operations, the carrier force needed to be able to launch combat air patrol (CAP) & strike missions at the same time..."...

"That drove sortie rate, which drove the number of embarked aircraft, which drove the size of the carrier. By 2002 it had reached a size where it could (& still can) be modified to launch catapult-arrest jets..."...

"... Meanwhile, the (USA's) Marines are realizing that, to support a realistic number of JSFs & V-22s, they have to dedicate a ship to

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #3)

... aviation, eliminating its landing craft...."

"... The UK is facing another challenge: providing airborne radar cover for its carriers."

"If the French build their second carrier to the same basic design (as the UK's versions- which is their plan r.v.l.), they have no problems (since their carriers will have catapults r.v.l.): just buy more E-2s."

"But the UK carriers will have to use helicopter-based (AWACS) AEW, which simply can't fly as high, or see as far, as the Hawkeye. A serious weakness, particularly against threats like the 3M54 Klub (page 21) missile...."

- RN aircraft carrier issue:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/18/blighty_carrier_deal_announced/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/18/blighty_carrier_deal_announced/page2.html :

Note the text:

"...So what will we taxpayers get for our £2 billion per ship? Americans spending that much money get a Nimitz-class nuclear powered supercarrier, a ship which on its own can defeat most national air forces....."

"...Funnily enough, we Brits won't get anything like that..."

".... The new UK carriers, for a start, will not be nuclear-propelled...."

"... The US Navy doesn't use nuke power just for fun - there are good reasons why it makes sense for carriers. In particular, nuclear is the only kind of modern-day warship propulsion which can easily generate the huge steam power required by current catapult launch systems. There are vague notions brewing in America regarding electrically-powered cats, to go with the electric transmissions favoured in the latest warships, but electric launchers won't be ready in time for the UK..."

"...As a result, the Brit carriers- though easily big enough- won't have catapults at all. This means that they won't be able to launch normal carrier planes, & thus that the UK must buy the jump-jet version of the new F-35, at needlessly vast expense....."

TYPE-45 DESTROYER

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #4)

... PROGRAMME NOT ANY BETTER!!:

Contradicting planners' specifications, the R.N.'s under construction new Type-45 Destroyers- with their world beating PAAMS anti-air warfare capabilities- are being built as stripped-down versions.

The few Type-45's that are to be built are not being fitted out with even 1/3 of the weapons and defensive systems their designers intended (see links below).

read:

- hugely reduced anti-submarine capabilities;

- no on-ship torpedo-launch abilities;

- none, or at best very out of date "Close In Weapons Systems" (CIWS’s) which are a basic industry-standard requirement for warships (such as Destroyers, Frigates, Aircraft Carriers) to use against incoming anti-ship missiles that their main weapons systems miss and for defending against, low-aircraft, fast-attack suicide boats, etc.

Instead, either none->>> or 25-year-old technology CIWS’s are reported as to-be-installed… installed once available to be cannibalized from ‘retired’ Type-22 and 23 Frigate’s.

Highly short sightedly- Type-45’s will each deploy only 1 helicopter- instead of the 2 that are international industry-standard for this class of ship: (USA/South Korea/Japan/Germany/etc)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type45.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/27/hms_diamond_launches_ouch_ouch/

To save money, each Type-45 Destroyer’s radar is being only ‘1/2-built’… Rather than fitting-out each ship with two main radar arrays only one is being installed per ship…

Normally two radar arrays are required for this type of ship in order to enable 360 degree coverage of potential threats; other ships; control of weapons and defensive systems; communications; etc:

One array would normally face forward and the other array aft, with each having some overlap ( IE: look-back abilities, often 20 degrees or so) coverage onto the main scanned-area that the other one

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #5)

... is responsible for. The ‘two-array’ system is solid state: no moving parts...

Using second-world-war-type technology, the one PAAMS radar array for each Type-45 is being installed on a ‘rotating wheel’… What if the engine rotating the radar array fails?; is sabotauged?; damaged?; etc? What if the power to the engine rotating the array was cut??

Type-45's won't be 'multi-mission' designation. This meaning they will not be capable of performing any types of missions other than 'anti-air' defense.

Type-45’s are not being fitted-out to deal with sea-surface based or land-based ‘threats/targets’.

Unlike other nations ships in this class, Type-45's will not be fitted out to enable the prosecution of anti sea-surface based; anti sub-surface (sea) based; and anti land-target based missions.

How does the above contrast with Parliament deliberations from 2000-2005??:

July 10-2000:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/779ap09.htm :

"MILITARY CAPABILITY

5. the Type 45—in common with all destroyers and frigates—will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of Defence tasks..."

July 23-2003:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmdfence/694/694we05.htm :

"Envisaged as a replacement for the Type 42 destroyers, the Type 45 will be a multi-role, general-purpose platform capable of operations across the spectrum of tasks..."

The French are designating several of their newest Destroyers

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon2/

as 'land attack' models- equipping them with cruise missile launchers (Sylver 70's) which are effectively a ’big’ version of the anti-air missile launchers (Sylver-50's) used on the RN’s new Type-45's.

Leading 'first-world' nations' warships need to be able to deal with threats/targets in all 4 spheres of battle: sub-surface, sea-su

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #6) Vancouver, Canada

... sea-surface, land-based and airborne.

None of the R.N.'s in-service warships (aircraft carriers, Type 23 Frigates and Type-42 Destroyers) have this vital capability.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type42.htm

(ALL of the US Navy's Destroyers produced since the early 1990's have these capabilities, as do South Korea's, Japan's and even Australia's recently produced/under construction Destroyers/Frigates...

The US Navy's new generation of medium sized aircraft carriers as well as their new generation of 'super carriers' will.)

Its been well known for over a decade that providing "anti-air" defenses for the RN’s non-front-line ships such as supply vessels, minesweepers & the like- let alone for its present 'pocket' aircraft carriers or any future "big deck" ones- CAN NOT BE DONE by any of the RN's dangerously outdated, Type-42 Destroyers or by its Type-22 & Type-23 Frigates.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akO7Y_ORw538&refer=home

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Klub.html

http://www.uscpf.org/html/events/2005/transcript.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/type42.htm

The RN's newer and upgraded Type-23 Frigates may well be proficient in dealing with subsurface threats with their "2087 sonar" abilities, but they have zero competencies against up-to-date airborne threats- like the SS-N-27 "sizzler" anti-ship missile.

Type-45's maximum radius of protection from airborne threats that could be afforded to other ships is purported to be about 4 or at most 4 and 1/2 miles from the respective Type-45...

Squadrons and fleets on missions almost never remain this close to each other for tactical and logistical purposes.... so the handful of Type-45's being built for the R.N. (see my comment above) will not be capable of providing anti-air cover for the whole R.N...

What happens when a Typ

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #7) Vancouver, Canada

... What happens when a Type-45 is faced with a sub surface threat and there is no Type-23 very nearby to 'protect it'??

What happens when a Type-23 is faced with an airborne threat and there is no Type-45 close-by to 'protect it'??

Answer: they'd be in trouble...

Sufficient numbers of Type-45's need to be built... not 4 or 6 or even 8, but the dozen promised by Labour to ‘replace’ the RN’s aged, egregiously vulnerable Type-42 Destroyers, and as well->>> additional ones- as multi-mission variants- sufficient to 'replace' ALL of theType-23's presently in-service or that were in service in 2001.... and enough to carry out extra duties perhaps escorting UK or other nations' aircraft carriers.... or providing cover for ships (like carriers/sub's) inserting commando's to land-based targets...

ALL Type-45's built need to be "fully equipped" and capable of dealing at least moderately competently with ALL 4 spheres of naval battle...

Royal Navy destroyers sail without missiles..., June 10-2008:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/2104716/Navy-destroyers-sail-without-missiles.html

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1025254/Two-Navy-destroyers-unable-missiles--theyve-removed-save-cash.html?ITO=1490

The Royal Navy has zero (fixed wing: Harrier-type) aircraft for its remaining aircraft carriers...

The situation since 2005 with the RN's (3)present 'pocket carriers': there are so few carrier-compatible fixed-wing aircraft available, that these carriers are having to be taken out-of-service or left on active duty without fixed-wing aircraft like Harriers:

http://www.newbernsj.com/news/british_35707___article.html/american_ship.html

HMS Illustrious is 'on patrol' without Harriers- they're ALL in Afghanistan...

Illustrious was recently on exercises with the Indian Navy (and other countries in that part of the world) contributing

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #8)


.... only helicopters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/investing?type=hotStocksNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7pJeHult9GszE37UXlSpmUm&src=blogBurst_investingNews&bbPostId=Cz7MRMBsk1nP8BDbYKPc05d4aBFAUsiQgnjRQB8VcBgLPWwD4&bbParentWidgetId=B7gSUbux1hpbz8uOa7TWsLnV :

"Indian Navy and Royal Navy in Konkan 2008 Exercise..." April 18-2008...

"...The Royal Navy will field the aircraft carrier HMS ILLUSTRIOUS (with six Merlin helicopters), guided missile frigate HMS WESTMINSTER.... The Indian Navy will be represented by guided-missile destroyers INS MYSORE and INS RAJPUT...."

Same with Illustrious's 'operational' sister- HMS Ark Royal, recently reported on BBC pages- no fixed-wing (IE 'Harrier-type') aircraft:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7439245.stm

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12975 :

... "HMS Ark Royal is currently... configured to carry Sea King, Chinook and Lynx helicopters, and up to 400 Royal Marines, which together provide a powerful amphibious force...."

"The ship is the UK's high readiness Landing Platform Helicopter (LPH) and Command Platform * at short notice to deploy to any of the world's current trouble spots......"

and able to do what??

(* IS NOT!! The RN's only (LPH) is HMS Ocean->> HMS Ocean has been out-of-service for 1-year. HMS Ark Royal is a 'fixed-wing type' aircraft carrier. r.v.l.)

Illustrious's other 'in service' sister, HMS Invincible is not capable of putting to sea, although not decommissioned...

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/ :

... "(a huge) problem is finding aircraft for the new carriers to operate. Currently the Royal Navy simply does not (have) regular access to UK operated fast jet (fixed-wing) aircraft to operate from its designated high readiness strike carrier, HMS Illustrious."

... "Disastrously the Sea Harrier FA.2 is now long gone and the sole operational naval air sq

("RN's PLANNED NEW AIRCRAFT CARRIERS NEED RE-DESIGN"
CONTINUED #9)

... squadron (800 NAS) re-equipped with the Harrier GR.7/9 is about to deploy (again) to Afghanistan, providing land-based close air support to NATO forces there."

"In order to maintain some level of experience in the operation of fixed wing aircraft, HMS Illustrious recently operated 14 American (US Marine Corps) AV-8B Harriers for an exercise and will soon embark Spanish Navy Harrier’s for another."

.... "Although the MOD has tried to put a positive spin on these deployments, the underlying desperation is impossible to hide."

... "Looking to the future, the RN’s plans to buy 60 Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA) dedicated to carrier operations have long been history, subsumed in to the RAF..."

In September-2007, HMS Ocean- the RN's, only dedicated helicopter carrier- was taken out-of-service for over 1 year for un-planned repairs:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/HmsOceanInLineForMajorRefit.htm

... leaving the RN’s with just about zero air cover... in an emergency/unexpected urgent situation...

Contrast the above with the USA's approach to aircraft carriers:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.phpi=3529451&c=SEA&s=AME :

"Shipbuilding Funds Added to U.S. Navy Budget" :

... "An amendment regarding F/A-18 Super Hornet procurement also was adopted by voice vote at the urging of Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., who warned the Navy won't have enough fighters as planes age."

"Aircraft carriers are nice things to have and float around, but without airplanes they are not very good," Akin said...."

The USA is presently redesigning its 'Nimitz Class' 'super carriers':

The resulting products will ALL be equipped with state of the art defenses, including extensive anti-missile defense systems- types of systems the RN's planned new carriers are not planned to have.

The USA is also in the middle of redesigning its 'medium-sized' (LHD-class) air