International Naval News & Discussion

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 20 Jun 2017 16:33

Details on the QEC air component and configurations

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Jun 2017 19:14

What ye sow,ye shall reap! Persecute the Baluchis,who were never part of Pakistan,and reap the consequences.The more Chinese and Paki personnel enter Baluchistan,the more targets will be there for the Baluchi freedom movement.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-new ... E4xdJ.html

Two naval officers shot dead in Pakistan, three injured
Security was tightened after the incident and a search operation was launched in the area.
WORLD Updated: Jun 20, 2017

At least two Pakistan Navy officers were killed and three others injured on Monday when unidentified motorcycle-borne militants opened fire on their vehicle in the restive southwestern Balochistan province.

The officers were carrying Iftar items from Jiwani town when their vehicle came under attack from four gunmen in the Gwadar district.

“Four armed men on two motorcycles attacked the Naval vehicle and opened indiscriminate firing on it,” a Baluchistan government official said.

He said six naval officers were in the vehicle when it was fired upon.

“One of them died on the spot while five others were rushed to Karachi for treatment. One of them expired later on,” he said.

A spokesman for Pakistan Navy said the three Naval personnel were injured in the attack.

Security was tightened after the incident and a search operation was launched in the area to apprehend those involved in the attack.

Baluchistan Chief Minister Sanaullah Zehri condemned the incident and directed the police to submit a report about the terror incident.

“We will not bow down before the terrorists,” Zehri said in his statement.

No militant group has claimed responsibility for the attack on the officers but Baloch nationalists and Islamist militants often target the security forces in the province.

The incident comes just few days after the ISIS claimed that it had killed two Chinese nationals, a man and woman, who had been kidnapped on May 24th from Jinnah town in Quetta.

Gwadar port and Baluchistan remain an integral part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and both countries have agreed to boost security for the people, including Chinese nationals, working on different projects under the USD 50 billion project.

Earlier in May, unidentified gunmen on motorcycles opened fire on labourers working on a road in Gwadar’s Pishgin area.

In context of the above incident,here's the latest from the US about Pak gifting Gwadar to the Chinese for a naval base.

Gulp. Pakistan May Be About To Offer A Naval Base To… China
JAZZ SHAWPosted at 10:41 am on June 19, 2017

NBC News dropped a bit of a bombshell last night coming from a place which has (fortunately) not been in the news as much of late. Pakistan. Usually when that country pops up in the headlines it’s something to do with Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the long running mess in that neck of the woods, but this time it’s all about China. It turns out that there is a very real possibility that Pakistan may be offering the Chinese a naval base on their coast as part of an expanded Chinese trade route deal worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The Chinese are denying it at this point, but our intelligence agencies seem to believe it’s something which may be happening sooner rather than later.

SEE ALSO: Will Congress mandate concealed carry reciprocity for DC?

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is a key ally of the United States — but the relationship is far from untroubled. And one of Washington’s main geopolitical rivals appears ready to step in.

The Pentagon is warning that the Islamic republic may soon house a Chinese military base.

A report released earlier this month suggested that Beijing would likely turn to countries such as Pakistan as it seeks to project its economic and military power abroad.

The Pentagon didn’t provide a time frame for such a move. However, a senior Pakistani diplomat confirmed to NBC News that his country invited China to build a naval facility on its territory back in 2011.
Where would such a base be located if this happened? Putting one in Karachi would likely be a bit too provocative for everyone to stomach, but you could definitely see them setting up shop in Gwadar. There’s already a thriving, well established maritime port there with plenty of commercial Chinese interests involved. And if you look at a map of the region you’ll notice that Gwadar is pretty much spitting distance from Iran.

TRENDING:
What do spelling misteaks say about Trump's White House?
It’s worth remembering why this is important and how it could take an already complicated and shaky relationship of ours and turn it on its head. Keep in mind that Pakistan is an ally of ours but they are an ally of convenience. They are a nuclear power which really doesn’t want any major problems with Washington, but they’re an Islamic state which has never seen eye to eye with us. They’re supposed to be helping us fight the Taliban in Afghanistan, but they’ve had “rogue” troops attacking Americans too often to ignore. They also mysteriously “failed to notice” that bin Laden was living right under their noses for years. Our intelligence agents remind us that the alleged initial offer of a naval base for China was made right after we took out OBL in that raid. Coincidence? Maybe, but…

Then there’s the India factor. India is our ally (just as Pakistan supposedly is) but those two countries are bitter rivals, both armed with nukes. There’s a pretty good article from just a couple of months ago at The National Interest about why the prospect of nuclear war between those two nations is not only possible, but it should terrify you. As long as we’re their only strong ally with a large military presence in the region Pakistan can afford to play both sides of the fence. But if the United States is moving toward exiting Afghanistan (which we must do sooner or later) it’s not hard to picture Pakistan warming up to China as an ally who is both more ideologically compatible and also not a big fan of India.

Pakistan is also run by people who shouldn’t engender a huge amount of trust in the west. Nawaz Sharif has a “colorful” background to put it mildly. Since his return to power in 2013 it has been widely noted that he’s been a bit too cozy with people such as infamous Afghanistan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Also, dissidents in Pakistan have had a bad habit of disappearing or turning up dead, such as rights activist Sabeen Mahmud. Add that to suspicions that he’s been playing fast and loose with the tax rolls and doing quite well for himself and there are plenty of questions.

As I said above, Pakistan has been an ally of convenience at best and they remain a dangerous power in that part of the world. Handing China a naval base located at the mouth of the Gulf of Oman with direct access to the Arabian Sea would be a destabilizing event in a number of ways. And our relations with all of the players in that region have become increasingly “complicated” over the past decade. Somebody needs to ride herd on these developments because the implications could be significant.

PS:BRF has been way,way ,ahead of the curve (about a decade earlier) about Pak ,Gwadar and the "Chinese
take-away" When the Chinese deny something,you can bet your shirt that they're lying with their rotten teeth. The stakes are very huge.I've been saying for almost 20 years that the PRC's plan is to ultimately end up squatting in the Gulf,where the globe's greatest reserves of energy are located.If India abandons Iran due to US pressure,then just watch the Chinese step in to replace us.The Chahbahar port development is tardy,like almost all Indian ventures abroad,and we'e asininely cut oil imports from Iran again tx to pressure from the US.Iran responded by reducing credit time,etc.,Frankly,who the F**k is the US to dictate to us what our (independent) foreign policy should be and why are our top leaders behaving like eunuchs always kowtowing to Uncle Sam? We are not rent boys like Pak..unless that's the ambition of our MEA!

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 24 Jun 2017 18:25

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 24 Jun 2017 23:59

israel test fires lora missile from freighter. could put in shipping container

https://www.rt.com/news/393851-israel-c ... -launcher/

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 25 Jun 2017 22:46

Investigators’ task to find out why U.S. destroyer failed to dodge cargo ship

There should have been lookouts on watch on the port, starboard and stern of the destroyer Fitzgerald — sailors scanning the horizon with binoculars and reporting by headsets to the destroyer’s bridge. At 1:30 a.m. Saturday, June 17, off the coast of Japan south of Tokyo, they could hardly have failed to see the 730-foot freighter ACX Crystal, stacked with more than 1,000 containers, as it closed in.

Radar officers working on the bridge and in the combat-information center below it should have spotted the freighter’s image on their screens, drawing steadily closer. And under standard protocol, the Fitzgerald’s captain, Cmdr. Bryce Benson, should have been awakened and summoned to the bridge to ensure a safe passage long before the ships could come near each other.

But none of that happened. The Fitzgerald’s routine cruise in good weather through familiar, if crowded, seas ended in the most lethal Navy accident in years. Seven sailors died.
...
...
As seawater poured in, some 116 crew members were asleep in two flooded berthing rooms. The ship’s radio room was damaged and much of its communications gear ruined or left without power. Sailors fought the flooding for an hour before sending distress calls, the institute said.

The bodies of the seven men who died were recovered by divers from flooded spaces sealed off to keep the ship from foundering, a wrenching decision by officers in the chaotic aftermath of the crash.
...
...
“It looks horrible,” said Gary E. Meyer, owner of a tech company in New Jersey, who served on the Navy ship San Diego and posted a YouTube commentary on the accident that got much attention. “You have three lookouts and you’re running radar,” Meyer said. “That ship can really accelerate and maneuver. It doesn’t mean they caused the collision, but they’re at fault for not avoiding it.”

Steven M. Morawiec, of Sparta, Wisconsin, who spent 22 years in the Navy and many times took charge of his ship at night as the officer of the deck, said the failure to summon the captain was incomprehensible.

“On my ship, if another ship was expected to get within 4,000 yards, you had to have the captain there beside you,” he said. “If you didn’t wake the captain when you were supposed to, you were toast.”
...
...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jun 2017 02:17

HMS Queen Elizabeth could be vulnerable to cyber-attack

Britain’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, which has left the Rosyth dockyard, could be vulnerable to a cyber-attack as it appears to be using the same outdated system that left the NHS exposed.

But officers aboard the £3.5bn carrier, which is the biggest and most powerful vessel ever built for the Royal Navy, insist that they are well prepared to defend against such attacks and will have a team of cyber specialists on board.

During a tour of the carrier, screens were spotted using what appeared to be the outdated 2001 Windows XP operating system. That OS was targeted by the WannaCry ransomware attack in May that disrupted parts of the NHS and other companies worldwide. Parliament came under cyber-attack on Friday with the accounts of about 90 MPs hacked.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2017 11:03

Tx NR for that post.In continuation here's a report highly critical of the programme. The IN too has very ambitious carrier goals,in some sense a "keeping up with the Chens" attitude,as China plans to possess the largest carrier fleet after the USN by 2030. Nevertheless a min. 3 carrier goal has been there since the IN's inception,in fact if I'm right at one time the number mentioned was "5".We must not bite off more than we can chew,economically,wisely design and determine the concept and contours of our next flat top .There's no harm in taking hard look at what the critics of the UK's carrier programme are saying and their relevance to the IN's requirements if any.

Pride of Britain? No, HMS Queen Elizabeth is a £6bn blunder that should be scuttled, writes MAX HASTINGS
By Max Hastings for the Daily Mail
PUBLISHED: 00:43 BST, 28 June 2017 |
What a glorious photo opportunity: the new pride and joy of British sea power, HMS Queen Elizabeth, largest warship ever built for the Royal Navy, this week sailed from the Firth of Forth for sea trials.

Here is a 21st-century ‘castle of steel’ to strike terror into the nation’s enemies.

Except the ship is nothing of the sort. HMS QE and its half-built sister, Prince of Wales, are giant embarrassments. They are symbols of almost everything that is wrong with British defence policy.

Their principal promoter 15 years ago was the First Sea Lord, now Admiral Lord West of Spithead, who went on to become a Labour security minister, and more recently an enthusiastic writer of letters to newspapers, explaining why ‘his’ carriers are wonderful.

He urged that, if Britain was to be a modern sea power, a worthy ally of the U.S., we needed giant platforms to carry the American F-35 fighter then under development.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and its half-built sister, Prince of Wales, are giant embarrassments. They are symbols of almost everything that is wrong with British defence policy

Some of us said from the outset that the new carriers reflected delusions of grandeur, and that the F-35s looked like becoming much too pricey for Britain’s status as a medium-sized nation.

How much smarter it would have been to build a couple of cheap ’n’ cheerful naval platforms from which to launch drones and low-tech aircraft. For that, one could almost have welded steel plates on top of tanker hulls, to create acceptable flight decks.

Anyone could have seen that defence was destined to remain under huge pressure. And it should have been taken into account that the cost of the ships and their planes would soar, as it always does.

What the Navy urgently needed was a large flotilla of small, simple ships to guard our shoreline and look after our interests overseas in regard to piracy, illegal immigration, terrorism and so on.

Cyber attack fears against Britain's newest warship as it's...
Big Lizzie squeezes under the Forth Bridge but sails...

But no, the admirals — West and his successors — were insistent: only the behemoths would do. There were still enough sensible people in the Ministry of Defence to prevent this lunacy coming to pass, but for one misfortune: in 2007, Gordon Brown became Labour prime minister. In case you failed to notice, he was, and remains, a Scot.

I doubt Brown would have spent sixpence on the aircraft carriers, except for one fact: he cared passionately about Scottish shipyards, and creating jobs in marginal constituencies. When contracts were signed for the new ships, Rosyth on the Firth of Forth became their birthplace.

For the past decade, convoys of dumper trucks filled with Scottish currency, almost all provided by English taxpayers, have headed north to fund the carriers’ construction. The original budget was £4 billion, and the monsters were scheduled to enter service in 2015.

Because of ballooning costs, her sister carrier, Prince of Wales, would almost certainly have been cancelled, but the canny Scots ensured that penalty clauses meant it would cost less to complete than abandon the ship.

Today, costs are already over £6 billion and counting, while until at least 2020 Queen Elizabeth will do little beyond hosting ballroom dancing classes for her crew, as extensive sea trials are carried out

Yet, as critics pointed out from the start, the ships were the least of the story: Lockheed’s F-35 fighter jet programme has gone disastrously awry, terrifying the Americans with its £150 billion cost overrun and seven-year delay, so that it has been dubbed ‘the jet that ate the Pentagon’.

At the outset, Britain planned to put 36 F-35s on each carrier. So stupendous is their cost that this has shrunk to 12. An unhappy naval officer muttered a year or two back: ‘Just so long as we can have enough to cover the flight deck in photos.’ The empty hangar space will be filled with helicopters, commandos, snooker tables — no, I am teasing about the last bit.

Sailors say that Queen Elizabeth will be useful for disaster relief missions. But a Channel ferry could do that job better as it can operate inshore, as the 65,000-ton giant cannot.

Worse, big ‘flat-top’ aircraft carriers will be vulnerable to the new generation of anti-ship missiles, which the Chinese and Russians are manufacturing in quantity, and which even such a nation as Iran is likely to acquire.

When either of our carriers puts to sea, almost the entire surface warship strength of the Navy will need to be deployed to protect them.

I have compared these boats to the ancient Egyptian pyramids: they have consumed immense resources while possessing almost zero utility.*(He doesn't know that the pyramids were massive power plants!) At least the pyramids are amazing to look at; I doubt in years to come a single tourist will visit Portsmouth to see the QE rotting at its moorings.

If I sound intemperate, it is because many people who care passionately about Britain’s defences have been warning for years that the carriers would prove a disaster.

There is a multi-billion-pound hole in the defence budget, and especially in Navy funding, which seems likely to be filled by yet again slashing the Army, a deplorable and short-sighted expedient.

Because of the fall in the pound, the F-35s are even more unaffordable, and thus their delivery may be slowed yet again. Until some planes arrive, the QE will presumably ferry the Royal Family overseas — they may get a Britannia replacement after all!

A bold government would adopt a drastic but sensible option: mothball both carriers and cancel the F-35 jets, whatever the penalty costs, and buy modest ships which the Navy can make real use of.

When the Queen christened the new carrier, her speechwriter caused her to describe this as representing ¿a new phase in our naval history¿. Indeed it does, and not a good one +3

The Navy’s website today lists the types of warships it owns — frigates, minehunters, destroyers and so on — but wisely does not give their respective numbers, because these are so embarrassing: it has just 19 significant surface vessels, together with some submarines and small craft.

Most sailors are privately as miserable about the burden the carriers impose on them as are soldiers and airmen. Yet the political cost of adopting the most rational course — sailing the QE into the North Sea and opening its seacocks to let the water flood in — is deemed unacceptable.

All nations are prone to equip themselves to fight the previous war, rather than the next. But Britain is in an especially bad fix, bereft of a credible strategic vision, because nobody dares even to think about the cost of preparing — for instance — to participate with NATO in a showdown to defend the Baltic republics against Russian aggression.

Our cyber-defences are negligible, yet these seem far more urgent and relevant than the Trident nuclear replacement. There is a fair chance we shall get through another generation without a nuclear showdown, God and President Trump willing.

There is no chance at all, however, that we shall avoid serious cyber-conflict, which could do undreamed of harm to infrastructure and the very heartbeat of the nation: consider the ranging shot that North Korea recently fired at computer systems around the world, including those of the NHS.

Our defences and security are in poor shape, partly because almost all eyes, including those of ministers, are focused on the domestic terrorist threat, rather than on foreign state enemies.

When the Queen christened the new carrier, her speechwriter caused her to describe this as representing ‘a new phase in our naval history’.

Indeed it does, and not a good one. It is a symbol of our weakness; of the irrelevance of much of our defence policy to the perils our children and grandchildren are likely to face from Britain’s enemies.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4lGt5ZxXO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

PS: Two points stand out in the piece.
Firstly,the fact that a huge surface fleet escort would be required to safeguard the carrier.This is wellknown and any CBG would need the escorts,par for the course.The Q is how much extra would that add to the IN's budget,escorts for 3 CBGs? Our goal is to have a balanced fleet with enough subs to deal with the PLAN's massive sub inventory,around 80 by 2020,plus Pak's sub fleet which will receive 8 more Chinese AIP subs.

Secondly,the aircraft aboard the carrier,the F-35B.Hugely expensive,so expensive in fact that the RN has cut the numbers down to a measly 12! It makes the Viraat's 8 Sea Harriers (why it was retd.) look very formidable! 12 carrier aircraft will be woefully inadequate for the QE to defend itself let alone carry out strike ops. The saving grace is that there is a ski-jump,which means that it can still operate STOBAR aircraft like MIG-29Ks,naval Rafales-also hideously expensive,etc.

It is in the RN's context today,Britain's diminishing role in global affairs and the presumptuous thinking that it must still strut around as Uncle Sam's deputy,a fallacy,that the carrier resembles today more of a dinosaur than a deadly sea monster. IN the IN's context,a third carrier is definitely on the cards,we need it.Our security environment has dramatically worsened,esp. in the maritime domain in recent times. It is the careful drawing up of requirements for the third carrier ,its air complement and judicious allocation of funds that is the Q.One thought comes to mind.Should the UK decide that they cannot operate two CVs ,the POW will become available for sale. It is a well designed vessel,with a ski-jump which should fit our requirements well as an interim carrier,before we can afford large N-powered super carriers. We've bought British carriers before,who knows,what may happen if the POW is destined for the auctioneer's block.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2017 11:32

Adding to the above,MH's mention of using merchantmen as flat tops for drones and light aircraft,reminds one of the USN's use of "Escort Carriers" and more capable "Light Carriers" in WW2,complementing the larger fleet carriers. HMS Ocean,an amphib vessel used by the RN<was also built to merchant vessel stds. This is an excellent way in which the IN could operate long range,long endurance UCAvs,Sea Guardians for instance, plus ASW helos and possibly an NLCA type fighter if a ski-jump is added,from cheaper platforms based upon MV stds.A Harrier once landed in an emergency on a container ship,proving a concept of using such vessels as low cost Harrier platforms.

In the Battle of the Atlantic, escort carriers were used to protect convoys against U-boats. Initially escort carriers accompanied the merchant ships and helped to fend off attacks from aircraft and submarines. As numbers increased later in the war, escort carriers also formed part of hunter-killer groups that sought out submarines instead of being attached to a particular convoy.

In the Pacific theater, CVEs provided air support of ground troops in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. They lacked the speed and weapons to counter enemy fleets, relying on the protection of a Fast Carrier Task Force. However, at the Battle off Samar, one U.S. task force of escort carriers managed to successfully defend itself against a much larger Japanese force of battleships and cruisers. The Japanese met a furious defense of carrier aircraft, screening destroyers, and destroyer escorts, proving that CVEs could appear to have the same striking power as full CVs.

The above references are given solely as a means of augmenting our limited carrier fleet and not meant to be replacements for genuine med/large flat tops.As said before,we should leverage the design,dimensions,flight deck of the planned 4 amphibs so that they could be used as light carriers in any crisis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Na ... _programme
Indian Navy Multi-Role Support Vessel programme

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jun 2017 12:48

EMALS flaw detected.
http://www.janes.com/article/71747/usn- ... cal-issues

USN reveals source of EMALS mechanical issues

Anika Torruella - IHS Jane's Navy International
25 June 2017

The General Atomics-built Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) installed on the first-of-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) is being "fine-tuned" to overcome a vibrational issue associated with optimising the launch and recovery of different aircraft appropriate for their configuration, Acting Secretary of the US Navy (USN) Sean Stackley stated at a congressional hearing on 16 June 2017.

"What we're going through right now is developing the bulletin for launch and recovery of the various type, model, series aircraft in the fleet that will be operating off of the carrier," Stackley said.

EMALS is intended to enable a higher degree of computer control, more accurate end-speed control, and smoother acceleration when launching carrier-based fixed-wing aircraft, such as F/A-18E/F Hornets and Super Hornets, EA-18G Growlers, and C-2A Greyhounds. It is also intended to be able to adapt to future carrier air-wing platforms, such as lightweight unmanned systems or future heavy strike aircraft.

EMALS consists of six subsystems including the launch motor (centre) pictured at the USN's land-based test site in Lakehurst, New Jersey. (General Atomics)

US lawmakers noted that the issue with the new catapult system had been previously described as a problem with "its ability to launch aircraft – particularly aircraft that have all their fuel tanks in place".

"We started [at the test site in Lakehurst, New Jersey], where we have the land-based system, and they basically start slow and build up in terms of launching and recovering the aircraft," Stackley said. "In that process, with F-18s with fuel tanks attached, vibration was detected. And so now what they're doing is going back through the software and adjusting the system to remove that vibration."

"Today they're renewing that testing at Lakehurst in advance of when we'll first do launch and recovery operations on the Ford, later [in mid- to late-2017]," Stackley said.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 14:46

EMALS flaw detected.

The vibration issue with certain combat loads on certain aircraft has been known for some time with EMALS and is being sorted out at the test facility. They have flown flights this spring and will continue to fly through the summer and into fall. The DOTE reports have been documenting it for some time and the program office handling it has a plan to rectify it during developmental testing. They are fine tuning the system as is normally done during the discovery --> correction phase that is a part of developing and operationalizing the system. Once developmental testing is fully done they will move to operational testing and then full capability is declared.

This is how systems are developed i.e. you have a developmental testing phase where the entire objective is to develop and open the envelope, find flaws, fix flaws etc. Then you have an operational test phase with a fully developed and dev. tested system so that you can compare the operational suitability of the said system to the requirements document in an operational scenario i.e. with operational crews simulating a real world scenario over many days of deployment. That in the US is the OT&E phase and is the last of the testing done on a system before it is declared to have met all milestones.

Secondly,the aircraft aboard the carrier,the F-35B.Hugely expensive,so expensive in fact that the RN has cut the numbers down to a measly 12!

This is nuts. Are you seriously trying to pass as fact that the UK will only be buying 12 F-35Bs? Could you tell me how many aircraft Britain has in the LRIP-12 through LRIP 14 lots currently under negotiations that include 440 aircraft nearly half of which are for International partners and FMS customers?

12 carrier aircraft will be woefully inadequate for the QE to defend itself let alone carry out strike ops.

They aren't deploying with 12 aircraft. This is not a USMC L-Class ship. Their CONEMP is 24 aircraft which can surge to 36. They have shared the details and I have posted them above on this very page.

Additionally, it wouldn't just be UK F-35Bs on these carriers - Many deployments will be mixed. In fact the QE's first ever deployment would have USMC aircraft and marines onboard.

The saving grace is that there is a ski-jump,which means that it can still operate STOBAR aircraft like MIG-29Ks,naval Rafales-also hideously expensive,etc.

Yeah the British put in a ski jump because they had secret plans to acquire the MiG-29K.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2017 14:54

UK would have been better served by license building 2 juan carlos and 2 mistrals/rotterdams for the price of 2 QE2.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 15:03

They wanted to preserve their carrier design, build and operational capability and the 2 vessels at around $6 Billion do allow for that. Operationally, they wouldn't be deploying these at a high tempo but then you have a long term arrangement that you can enter with the USMC that in my opinion will result in a long term lease by them for one of the ships over the medium term. But it still gets them a one carrier presence when one factors in that they don't fight alone and there are other Naval forces that will contribute as well.

The French have played it right by delaying their decision on a new carrier till such a point where there is political will for it. Seems Macron may move forward and France will likely build a proper multi-aircraft launch capability carrier. They also have a Cat enabled fighter and extensive expereince with E-2C.

QE is a good design and is pretty affordable by most carrier standards. Two flaws clearly apparent are the absence of VLS, and a rotating array. In a world where ship bound ballistic missiles are going to only proliferate it would have been nice to have a higher frequency fixed radar and at least some ESSM capability (or equivalent). Those are two areas you don't want to cut costs in.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Jun 2017 15:18

cant ESSM be put in sponsons. the kuz does that.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jun 2017 15:22

Maybe and perhaps they will do some sort of future defensive upgrade but it was a cost cutting measure and shouldn't have been allowed. Same with an L-band rotating array. Its a compromise frequency and a poor discriminator but a clear trade to get maximum surveillance volume in a desired footprint and cost. Ok for a ballistic missile defense tasked frigate that operates under and alongside AEGIS but sub optimal for an aircraft carrier that will be the prime target no matter which theater it deploys in.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2017 12:23

That is precisely the problem all along,what I've been emphasising,costs..The QE2 CV can certainly carry dozens of fighters,but can afford the proverbial "one doz" only right now.That too for the 6th largest economy in the world with a glorious tradition spanning centuries of maritime warfare.
Can India with its economic constraints afford an EMALS N-powered carrier (Ford's costs approx. $13B reports,not adding the cost of its CBG escorts) even half the price of a USN Ford? No way! Acquiring a large carrier would beggar the IN unless the defence budget was raised to at least 3% of the economy,which isn't going to happen barring an imminent spat with China.

The UK may be able to lease QE no. 2 to the French,US,whoever,to recoup some of its dev/blg. costs and through a lease avoid operating costs,but India will have to foot the entire bill,with GST for the same.No way Jose. I've posted a UK report and criticism from the UK media who should know better about how their def. budget moolah is being spent,in this case most unwisely they feel.

By simply improving the specs of the 4 planned amphibs for the IN,so that they will be also able to operate frontline naval fighters through a ski-jump,we will dramatically increase the number of four air-capable flat tops to 7,at least 6,thereby possessing the equiv of 2-3 med carriers and 3/4 light carriers. That would be a far more sensible plan instead of having just 2-3 carriers and 3/4 mere LPDs.THat the IN may be thinking along similar lines ,stems from the title of the acquisition planned,"multi-role support vessel",something similar to the Spanish description of their JC vessel.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2017 14:45

Philip wrote:That is precisely the problem all along,what I've been emphasising,costs..The QE2 CV can certainly carry dozens of fighters,but can afford the proverbial "one doz" only right now

Stop making things up. The UK is going to be ordering more aircraft in Lots 12 , 13 and 14 and these will be delivered as the Vessel and their joint RAF/RN air component goes from IOC to FOC in the coming few years. The US Government has released the contracting document for LRIP 12, 13 and 14 (for which negotiations are currently underway), and in it are the specifics of what the contract includes for each international partner.

The UK will be picking up 17 F-35Bs in Lot 12, 13 and 14 (3+6+8) on top of the 7 they already have taken delivery of or have on order. This takes their total buy through lot 14 to 24 aircraft, or just about where they need to be in between the IOC and FOC phase of their first QEC carrier and the F-35B. They have already announced that their first deployment will be a joint one with the USMC. They will be ordering more aircraft beyond LRIP-14 as part of the second partner driven block buy and you could expect another block of 17-24 aircraft put on order then as they work at building up full FOC capability for the POW around the middle of next decade. Also, the UK specific changes in terms of Meteor missile and Spear III Integration are block-4 capabilities and currently scheduled for fleet release early next decade so it makes sense for them to buy higher quantities of block 4 aircraft and save money on upgrades.

But your infatuation with one doz aircraft does reminds me of a certain deployment of a certain smokey carrier to that showed up for combat with around that many fixed winged fast jets.

The term now used for the carriers embarked squadrons is ‘Carrier Air Wing’ (CVW). The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers, up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions. Captain Jerry Kyd, commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, commented on the initial deployment and the gradual increase in air wing numbers: “We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed. We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.” LINK

You can't treat the F-35 program like the MiG-29K or the Rafale in that there is a tremendous rate of production here which is absent on those two or practically any other global program. More F-35Bs will be produced next year (just the STOVL variant) than all variants of Rafale for example, and by 2020 the USMC will likely be getting upwards of 25 deliveries per year alone. The ability to flex and increase order is always there for Britain and they could potentially pick up a dozen aircraft a year post LRIP-14 depending upon the second block buy contract is negotiated.

Can India with its economic constraints afford an EMALS N-powered carrier (Ford's costs approx. $13B reports,not adding the cost of its CBG escorts) even half the price of a USN Ford? No way! Acquiring a large carrier would beggar the IN unless the defence budget was raised to at least 3% of the economy,which isn't going to happen barring an imminent spat with China.

The Ford cost has no bearing on what the cost of the Indian carrier would be. The only two known components the IN is looking to take from he Ford are the EMALS and AAG. Those cost have been given to you plenty of times in the past.

The UK may be able to lease QE no. 2 to the French,US,whoever,to recoup some of its dev/blg. costs and through a lease avoid operating costs,but India will have to foot the entire bill,with GST for the same.No way Jose. I've posted a UK report and criticism from the UK media who should know better about how their def. budget moolah is being spent,in this case most unwisely they feel.

Not a related comparison at all. The operational expenditures on the two Navies is nowhere close to comparable.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2017 19:48

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jun 2017 20:01

@QE ^^. What's the reason for the stuck on ski ramp vs sloped deck on the Vikrant/Vicky? Steeper angle?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Jun 2017 20:24

i believe at one time they were toying with the idea of CTOL with EMALS, plus they can park some vehicles and aircraft in the flat area next to the glued on ramp...CVNs tend to park a lot of ac near the bows

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Jun 2017 20:56

Again,the Q is not how many JSFs the QE can carry,but right now all that the RN can afford is "one doz"! True,in the fullness of time,they will buy more JSFs,and no one is disputing the prod. capability of the manufacturer.However,extras come in at extra cost. The UK cutting their defence budgets ad nauseum,insisting upon retaining Trident at monstrous expense,has depleted the RN's other assets enormously.It simply cannot any longer "punch above its weight" as it likes to say. The futre too looks very grim after the "towering inferno" of London.Councils are broke and have no money to pay for replacement of al cladding.A bribe of 1B GBP has been given to the DUP's 10 MPs, (not bad,100M for each MP!)for May's govt. to survive. Let's guess as to many more JSFs will be ordered in the next few years esp. when the EU are sharpening their knives like Shylock in demanding 100B Euros as the price for Brexit..

But the real issue here is India and the IN's carrier ambitions,when our situ is even more perilous than the UK. Right now the yawning gaps in subs,MCMs and ASW helos must take precedence over a third large EMALS N-powered carrier. The approx 50 29Ks are enough to serve aboard both the VikA and Vikrant,accompanied by 30+ helos and some UCAVs hopefully.More surface warships are also planned,the 4 Grigor/Talwar+ FFGs,P-17As and upgraded P-28 follow ons,The helo requirement is critical and has to be finalised before any 57+ second line of naval strike fighter deal is concluded.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jun 2017 21:12

Again,the Q is not how many JSFs the QE can carry,but right now all that the RN can afford is "one doz"!

Which is WRONG as is evident from the number of aircraft they have in possession or on firm order plus those currently being negotiated for Lots 12-14 (17 for a total of 24 not including test aircraft). This will give them enough to push the QE, first in class vessel through IOC, and eventually FOC with the initial deployment scheduled with a USMC complement.

POW is essentially a 2023-2025 vessel which will given them plenty of time to buy its complementary air wing in Lots 14 through 16 which will deliver aircraft in the 2024-2027 time-frame or right in time for her IOC to FOC transition. Current plan is to equip the first in class vessel with 24 F-35Bs by 2023 which will likely signal its FOC status. There is no ON switch that you flick as you incorporate a new big deck carrier and new advanced aircraft into your inventory. They will work their way through its first couple of deployments, long testing and integration period and eventually transition from IOC to FOC status as is the norm the world over with a new class of warships and aircraft. Just as they have been training and integrating on the USMC L class vessels, the USMC will be alongside on the QECs first deployment in 2020.

right now all that the RN can afford...

RIGHT Now does not matter, since neither the carrier, nor the F-35B are operational with the UKs armed forces.

True,in the fullness of time,they will buy more JSF

The vessel has just sailed for her sea trials phase. This will then enable a soft IOC, and eventually a first deployment. They intend on fielding an air wing comprising of 24 F-35Bs by 2023 as they work through both the vessels IOC, and FOC and the aircraft's IOC and FOC within their force construct. This has been known since the they publicly released the 2015 SDSR and is reflected in the number of aircraft they have ordered and have submitted for negotiations in the first block buy portion of the program.

As per the current plans the first QEC and its air-wing will make its first at sea voyage off of the US East coast with a UK and US F-35B component. This will be in late 2018 or early 2019 and likely a largely training endeavor. IOC for the vessel is expected in late 2020 and between 2021 and 2023 they will work towards declaring full operational capability with the current air wing comprising of 24 F-35Bs all of which would have been ordered by next year and delivered by late 2023 or early 2024.

chola · Post by **chola** » 29 Jun 2017 21:15

Nice war of words from our favorite goris -- russkies and britshits.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-a ... ers-2017-6

Fallon, who boasted the UK was building two powerful aircraft carriers at a time when only three countries in the world were constructing them, also ribbed the Kuznetsov specifically.

"When you saw that old, dilapidated Kuznetsov sailing through the Channel, a few months ago, I think the Russians will look at this ship with a little bit of envy," he told The Telegraph.

. . .

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said the UK defense secretary's "ecstatic statements ... expose Fallon's utter ignorance of naval science."

"Unlike the Admiral Kuznetsov, which is equipped with anti-aircraft and anti-submarine missiles and especially Granit missiles to hit ships, the British aircraft carrier is nothing but a big, convenient target in the sea," he said in a statement.

"For that reason, it is in the interests of the British royal navy not to show off the 'beauty' of its aircraft carrier on the high seas any closer than a few hundred miles to its Russian 'distant relative,'" Konashenkov added.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jun 2017 03:23

Cosmo_R wrote:@QE ^^. What's the reason for the stuck on ski ramp vs sloped deck on the Vikrant/Vicky? Steeper angle?

Different design trades. Even the USMC can park 14+1 (one on the lift) F-35Bs on the deck of the USS Americas under the Lightning Carrier concept of deployment.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2017 07:44

being a cruiser hull the bow of vikky is half the width of the proper carriers like QE2.
the QE2 despite being 30% smaller than the nimitz class is a very wide deck and has great deck area.
if we go big , we could purchase the basic design as a proven template to adapt with.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2017 07:47

the QE2 is a shorter nimitz and has same width. note how vikrant is 1.5x area of vikky and QE2 is 1.5x of vikrant

for its size its a great design if you put CTOL on it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2017 07:50

icing on cake would have been eliminating one of the islands and putting the engine exhaust outboard on a sponson to create even more parking area.

chola · Post by **chola** » 30 Jun 2017 08:08

Singha wrote:the QE2 is a shorter nimitz and has same width. note how vikrant is 1.5x area of vikky and QE2 is 1.5x of vikrant

Just looking at the Adm. Gorshkov (I refuse to give this PoS an Indian name) compared to the Vikrant tells me that even after a multi-billion dollar refit, the thing is still a cruiser masquerading as a carrier. Putting the biggest-arsed island possible in the middle of the flight deck. The stern which must accept and arrest landing aircraft doing what amounts to a controlled crash looks dangerously cramped with barely enough realestate to park aircraft on the starboard side. WTH!

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Jun 2017 09:39

brar_w wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote:@QE ^^. What's the reason for the stuck on ski ramp vs sloped deck on the Vikrant/Vicky? Steeper angle?
Different design trades. Even the USMC can park 14+1 (one on the lift) F-35Bs on the deck of the USS Americas under the Lightning Carrier concept of deployment.

Yes. Different design concepts. The Russian stuff is a derivative of a "cruiser" . I am willing to bet that the Kuzentsov /Vikrant/VikAd have lower freeboard than a "conventional" carrier and have a large sheer in the bow (to keep the bow dry in heavy seas and also it is a damage survival technique, bow gets punctured , it sinks down at the bow a bit and still remains above water) , while the QE and USN carriers will have "large" freeboards, and hence don't need to sheer their bows (like what happens in a large cargo ship vs a smaller fishing boat/cargo vessel) .

Net result, Russians since they are sheering their bows , will have a "ship" like construction in the ramp (with the bulkheads going all the way up to deck plating), while in the QE2 and the "stuck on" ski jumps, the ski jumps are just "super structure" and the bulkheads wont go all the way up (but rather terminate at flat deck level, no need to do that and you save massive weight in the process).

This goes back to the old question in carriers . Is the strength deck the "flight deck" or is the strength deck at the hanger deck , with the flight deck and others being "super structure" . Typically for upto ~~60K~~ 50K tons like the Midway Class you really don't want to put the strength deck at flight deck level. For the larger 90K ton behemonths the USN builds now, probably you want to do it.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jun 2017 12:06

why would the kuz and vik being carrier designs go with a non carriership slim bow? the khan and french carrier routinely operate in bad seas of north atlantic and the japanese hyuga and izumo in north pacific.

the vikky is a italian template from cavour, not even russian in any format.

vina · Post by **vina** » 30 Jun 2017 12:34

Singha wrote:why would the kuz and vik being carrier designs go with a non carriership slim bow? the khan and french carrier routinely operate in bad seas of north atlantic and the japanese hyuga and izumo in north pacific.

the vikky is a italian template from cavour, not even russian in any format.

You save weight.

If you have a "high freeboard" from stem to stern, the bulkheads need to go right up to deck level and weight increases. So, what is done in warships is keep the freeboard (i.e. height above waterline) as low as you can (damage tolerance margin etc etc) amidships and in the stern , while you sheer the bow to keep the bow dry and to improve sea keeping and also for damage (chances are you will crash into things or run aground a reef with your bow in all probability and that will sink when it takes in water) . You see the side of any warship /fishing boat etc, you can see it clearly. The "width" of the bow is not an issue. The overall deck area is .

But all in all, an aircraft carrier is a pretty "high" ship above the waterline. You need the hanger and the flight deck and the hanger deck has to be a reasonable height above the waterline and the hanger itself has to be a bit tall to accommodate planes without having them to force their tailplanes to be folded. However, in comparison, I do think the Vik , Kuz etc will lesser freeboard than the USN and Brit carriers.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jun 2017 13:34

There is no argument about the Gorshkov conversion,a regular flat top design would've been preferred.However,what's been achieved has been very praiseworthy. My only wish is that it could've been outfitted with better anti-missile/air defensive systems.I think cost was a factor in not doing so when first delivered.Even the B-1 fitment could've waited and B-8 fitted aboard.Kashtan type gun/missile BPDMS systems could've been added.,to give a multi-layered defensive suite,giving more capabilty against enemy missile salvoes.

I asked a former CNS why we chose the Gorky instead of the Varyag also offered at the time. There was no yard in India that could properly serve as a base for her at that time.Her hull was also not in too good a condition.Hats off to the PRC though.They spent billions ,took their time and resurrected her into a very potent carrier and are using her design as a template for their future fleet carriers
2 decades ago,we also never had the kind of money we have now and all that was available to us were the Sov. carriers and cruiser/carriers.The Varyag would've cost more too.The Ulyanovsk was also under construction,scrapped when 20% complete.V.Interestingly,the carrier was to operate the Soviet version of the Hawkeye,the Yak-44,project dropped after the demise of the USSR.It could be cat launched but also take off using a ski-jump.This is of particular interest should we one day build a larger carrier.

However,I have an interesting idea.The length of a D_228,which we're manufacturing in large qty. is shorter in length than a MIG-29K.Though the wingspan is larger,folding wings could be designed and its height is just over a foot higher than a 29K.We could develop an AEW version of it and possibly fit the same planar radar/modified version ,of what we've used aboard our EMB AEW birds.The radar appears to be around 8-9m long and could easily fit on the Do-228. What we have to test is whether a DO-228 can first take-off from a ski-jump given for ex.,IAC-1's flight deck dimensions.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jun 2017 14:44

Singha wrote: for its size its a great design if you put CTOL on it.

The QE is a really good design barring some of the things I had mentioned earlier. The Brits have probably resigned to the fact that they won't be using it as part of an independent flotilla but as part of a stand off coalition offensive strike capability alongside European and US defensive help. They could afford to not have a VLS and not have a high frequency targeting radar on it but it is something that will always be lacking and will really prevent it from going into areas where the threat is significant. Given that it lacks long range AEW from altitude it isn't as survivable and is easier to hold back than a scaled down Nimitz for example.

The F-35B is similar to the MiG-29K in terms of mission radius and may even be better when you factor in strike payloads. The only drawback is that you can't use the heavy GBU-39's, and JSM like fits internally but then there are externally deployed stand off weapon options to compensate (JSM being one). The JSF is significantly better offensive platform than the MiG-29K or even an F-18E. It should also not be awfully expensive to turn the QE design (not retrofit) into a STOBAR carrier unlike a full CATOBAR retrofit.

The UK has really tied themselves to the USMC with this vessel. They'll fly the same aircraft, and will likely choose similar UAV options given the unique requirements of the QE and the USMCs L class vessels. Won't be surprised if the brits look at the Osprey too before its production seizes next decade. It has the multi-mission flexibility to serve COD, troop transport and recovery tanker roles for them and most importantly is probably the only aircraft that can land on their vessel with an F-35B propulsion module.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jun 2017 15:22

brar_w wrote:
As per the current plans the first QEC and its air-wing will make its first at sea voyage off of the US East coast with a UK and US F-35B component. This will be in late 2018 or early 2019 and likely a largely training endeavor. IOC for the vessel is expected in late 2020 and between 2021 and 2023 they will work towards declaring full operational capability with the current air wing comprising of 24 F-35Bs all of which would have been ordered by next year and delivered by late 2023 or early 2024.

The article below from Jane's highlights their current plans and confirms my earlier assumption that the first in class vessel will declare Full Operational Capability when they have 24 operational aircraft for one carrier deployment which they are currently slated to have by 2023.

UK confident ahead of F-35B and Queen Elizabeth integration trials

The UK "is in a very good place" as it prepares for the start of carrier trials of its Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) towards the end of next year, the chief of the Royal Air Force (RAF) told Jane's on 28 June.

Speaking days after the Royal Navy's (RN's) Queen Elizabeth (QE) aircraft carrier set sail for its first sea trials, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier said that the work already done by UK and US Marine Corps (USMC) personnel to test the F-35B on the corps' amphibious assault ships has helped to prepare the ground for QE integration trials that are scheduled to begin in late 2018.

"For Queen Elizabeth and F-35B integration, we are clearly in a very good place. The US Marine Corps has been flying its F-35Bs off its own aircraft carriers, with UK pilots and engineers taking part in those trials, so we already have experience of flying F-35Bs off marine corps ships. When you look at the size of our carrier [compared to the USMC's Wasp- and America-class assault ships] it should not be the greatest challenge - I can't see any reason why we will not achieve our plan for flying trials to start at the end of next year," ACM Hillier said.

With the first UK F-35Bs due to arrive on Queen Elizabeth at the end of 2018, initial operating capability for aircraft aboard the carrier is due in 2020. In 2021, the USMC is set to embark a number of its jets aboard the ship, which will further de-risk the programme for the UK. Full operating capability for both the Queen Elizabeth and the UK's F-35B force is set for 2023.

As announced during the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in 2015, the UK government has committed itself to procuring its full programme-of-record of 138 F-35Bs over the life of the programme. The first 24 aircraft (plus 18 for training) will be fast-tracked to be available for operations on Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship Prince of Wales by 2023.

In UK service, the F-35B will be operated as a joint asset by the RAF and RN. To date, the first two operational units of 617 'Dambusters' Squadron and 809 'Immortals' Naval Air Squadron have been announced, with a further two to follow. In terms of how many F-35Bs the UK will have in its inventory at any one time, ACM Hillier told Jane's that this number has yet to be decided upon. "I don't have the figure because it is still relatively early on in the programme," he said. "I am focused on the 138 - that is just a hugely important commitment that was made and reaffirmed in the SDSR in 2015."

As ACM Hillier explained to Jane's , more important than the number of aircraft in the inventory is the number that will be available for operational use. The F-35B will serve alongside the Eurofighter Typhoon in RAF service through to that platform's out-of-service date of 2040, but numbers of both will vary and fluctuate as one type is ramped-up and the other drawn down. "Do we have it mapped out to the exact number of aircraft?" ACM Hillier asked. "Well no, because things change and events will get in the way, and it will depend on our operational priorities and a whole range of other factors."

While the UK is not due to start flying its aircraft from Queen Elizabeth until the end of 2018, work has been under way for some time to prepare its pilots, maintainers, and planners for the task. Key to these preparations has been a bespoke simulator that BAE Systems has built at its Warton facility.

The full-motion simulator features a 360° immersive experience for the pilot that is linked to a full representation of the ship's flying control tower (FLYCO), from where a Landing Signal Officer (LSO) on board the carrier will control aviation operations. Over the coming months this simulator will be used by UK and US military test pilots to practise thousands of 'ski jump' short take-offs and vertical landings.

Before the start of pilot training, the BAE Systems simulator has been used to support the design and development of the interface between the F-35 and the Queen Elizabeth . One key aspect of this interface will be the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) method of recovery that has been developed to bring aircraft into land on the deck with an element of forward speed for wing-borne lift. This will allow the pilot to bring back more fuel and weapons than would otherwise be possible with a vertical landing, and reduces the stress of a vertical landing on both the aircraft and the ship. This SRVL will need to be extensively practised on the simulator as it will be a fundamental skill not just for the pilots, but also for the deck movements crew.

Overall, the synthetic trainer has been a great way of reducing the risk to the F-35B and Queen Elizabeth carrier programmes by simulating the environment around the ship, getting the correct deck lighting in place, and establishing the procedures and radio calls that will be used.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 01 Jul 2017 01:06

Large Virginia Class SSN deal is currently in the works and will follow up on the previous bulk deal that was approved a few years ago. Plans are for a $32 Billion, 10 sub deal at a production rate of 2 per year. All 10 are to be Block V and most if not all will incorporate the Virginia Payload Module.

Pentagon seeks OK to jump-start negotiations in FY-18 for potential $32B submarine deal

The Defense Department wants permission from Congress to begin negotiations with General Dynamics on a five-year deal beginning in fiscal year 2019 to buy 10 attack submarines for a potential $32.6 billion, a package the Navy estimates would cost $5.4 billion less than buying the Virginia-class boats annually.

On June 16, DOD provided Congress a package of legislative proposals to accompany the FY-18 spending request. In them, the Pentagon details the case for negotiating a multiyear contract with General Dynamics Electric Boat, Groton, CT, beginning in FY-18.

The proposal seeks authority for the Navy secretary to enter into a multiyear contract for Virginia-class Block V boats. The service has previously executed multiyear contracts to buy five Block II Virginia-class boats between FY-04 and FY-08, then another deal to procure eight Block III ships between FY-09 and FY-13, and a current deal to buy 10 Block IV boats between FY-14 and FY-18.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jul 2017 09:35

Ran into a BAE Systems Next Gen. Jammer pod configuration. They can still compete for the Low Band Increment -2 although the physical dimension and configuration of the integrated pod is likely to remain unchanged as the low band pod won't have nearly as much power requirement as the mid-band one which would warrant a re-design.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 03 Jul 2017 09:55

>>It should also not be awfully expensive to turn the QE design (not retrofit) into a STOBAR carrier unlike a full CATOBAR retrofit.

i read the french stalled PA2 carrier was based off the same template and original plan was to amortize the capex and opex of common building blocks across the anglo-french carriers. but it was steam CTOL from day1. is anything known if they completed the design and shelved it or decided to bail out more early?

if IN goes for vishal, this design if complete would be a nice starting point to get if we anoint DCNS as the consultant...fits right in the weight category as a baby nimitz.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jul 2017 17:05

I think that was the initial plan. However, if i recall correctly DCNS had a different carrier design now that they are proposing for the French Navy. They are also likely to ditch steam catapults and pursue EMALS as well since that is where the technology is heading. I believe Macron has publicly expressed interest in re-starting the stalled projects so it will be interesting to follow the design and how it evolved if it is pursued in the coming years.

negi · Post by **negi** » 03 Jul 2017 17:54

I think lack of ESSM and self defense equipment on a mid sized carrier like QE2 can be looked at in two ways; jingo view can always be that Brits could not achieve better packing of such hardware on a 65k carrier without compromising on perhaps it's air-wing the other perspective can be in any case QE2 will literally be treated like a Queen by the RN and hence will always be deployed as part of a carrier strike group with ample surface and submarine assets ; assuming that the new platforms that constitute a CSG are fairly well integrated in terms of command and control then QE2's lack of self defense armaments should not be such a big deal (the type 45s will always keep her company), of course there can be scenarios when she would be a sitting duck when cornered alone.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 03 Jul 2017 18:01

Integrating ESSM is not an issue, that bit is easy. It is the cost that that imposes during design and operational since that effects the C2 system, and the sensor suite i.e. a proper multi faceted fire control radar and illuminators. Defensively, there is nothing that they have that can defend the primary vessel from a short-medium range ballistic missile volley. Those missiles are not likely to get high enough for a neighboring US vessel to deploy SM3s while you would need vessels just at the right place for them to be shot down even by SM2s. You need organic TBM capability since even in the Middle East there is a developing anti ship ballistic missile threat, particularly in the 300-800 km ranges. There is a reason why the USN and ESSM cooperative partners are rapidly developing ESSM Blk. II which as among other things SRBM intercept capability. None of the EU navies can provide broad area TBM defense against this threat type so you would have to carry it organically, or stand off.

Short sighted like many of their defense investment decisions but something they likely made to preserve the two carriers so they'll aim to add these around the mid life upgrade phase of the vessel. There is unlikely to be a falkland like scenario where the RN deploys by itself and without US, or other NATO partner coverage but even with that, not having some of these survivability features makes creating access issues for this vessel a lot easier for a potential adversary, so that is something that will always be reflected in how it deploys. It is a really good overall design and the program is quite affordable by Aircraft Carrier standards..but for survivability which is lacking whereas it should have been enhanced since its not a CATOBAR carrier with constant E-2D defensive orbits in high threat environments.