With a measure of envy from the U.S. Navy, the British are well into designing two aircraft carriers that should considerably increase their naval strike capability—and Europe's—around the world. Unencumbered by legacy systems inherent in the U.S. carrier fleet, the Royal Navy and United Kingdom shipyards are being handed a blank sheet of paper to arrive at the most cost-effective and efficient solutions to maritime aviation needs for the next 50 years.
Defining needs decades into the future is a huge political exercise—especially for an island nation with major domestic demands that is drawing ever closer to the European Union. Planners estimate this project will cost about $4.5 billion for both ships, $15 billion for their aircraft, and $10.5 billion for the 50-year running costs of the ships. (Aircraft life-cycle costs are unknown.)
Even some defense advocates cannot see the need for new aircraft carriers in a world where the threat seems more likely to come from unconventional terrorist attacks than from aircraft that could challenge the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). But the United Kingdom still has a world outlook of historical commitment and pride in military power—perhaps second only to the United States. In spite of certain parallels with 1966 (when an incoming Labour government doomed conventional carriers by scrapping the CVA-01 design), there is broad political and interservice consensus on replacing the three Invincible-class carriers when they are retired in the middle of the next decade. The U.K. 1998 Strategic Defence Review set the policy framework that is pushing the carriers forward in spite of an "extra chapter" added as a result of the 11 September terrorist attacks.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has established the need for an offensive strike capability with global reach that can be deployed when host-nation support is not available. Essentially tactical rather than strategic, the carrier-borne aircraft are intended to provide strike capabilities early in a campaign. This is a turn-around from the British of the 1960s, when focus on containing the Soviet threat led them to succeed the CVA-01 plan with three 19,500-ton Invincible-class "through-deck cruisers" designed primarily to carry helicopters for antisubmarine warfare. They became aircraft carriers only because of the fortuitous introduction of Harrier vertical/short takeoff and landing (VSTOL) aircraft. Hence, the blank sheet of paper for CVF-01 and CVF-02 (NATO designation for future carriers) to replace the Invincible class in 2012 and 2015, respectively.
Given the choice of three smaller ships to replace the three older carriers, or two at 50,000 tons and wartime capacities of 50 aircraft, the Royal Navy opted for the two larger ships. "We want to be able to deliver a respectable strike package and you need a large ship to do that. Smaller ships can't," said Commodore Ron Finlayson, Royal Navy, Director of Equipment Capability (Above Water Battle Space) at the MoD. How can two carriers be more available than three? By reducing the need for refits. Currently, one Invincible-class carrier is available at sea; another undergoes rest, refitting, and training; the third is in deep maintenance. By sending them to dry dock only once every six years, one of the carriers will be available at all times and the other available part of the time. In the interim, upkeep will be done by underwater engineering and maintenance crews. Anticipating this approach, the MoD announced that Portsmouth would be the carriers' main base, and the nearby civil port of Southampton is being considered as an additional port for the duty "quick-reaction" carrier.
The CVFs will be the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy. Comparable in displacement to the Ark Royal- and Eagle-class carriers of World War II, they will be considerably longer than the CVA-01. (At 950 feet, they are 130 feet shorter than USS Nimitz [CVN-68]-class carriers, with half the displacement.) They are so big that Britain no longer has any single shipyard capable of building them. Accordingly, the competing contractors—one led by BAE Systems, the other by France's Thales—plan to build the ships in sections at various yards around the country and assemble them in one place. BAE's design uses the modular system already under way in building the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers. The carrier project will be on a much larger scale, engaging all the U.K. ship-building facilities to produce a dozen hull blocks and bring them into four larger blocks before final assembly. The effort requires about 6,000 workers, including 1,000 designers. Selection of the strike aircraft to be embarked will take place this fall. The winning CVF contractor will be selected in March 2003; construction starts in 2005.
BAE Systems is pleading with the government to use this project to create a long-term strategy for U.K. shipbuilding that would create significant prospects for exports. In BAE's view, the alternative is to hand it to Thales and France, thereby giving up significant intellectual property rights to foreign ownership. Thales counters that the ships would be designed to British specifications and built in British yards. Either way, both companies see the project as a flagship for the most advanced naval systems in Europe, if not the world, with 70% of the project's cost going into the electronics and network of systems that bring the project together—as opposed to the platform itself. For those with a grand vision of European defense, the project is an ideal opportunity for Britain to join with France (and other nations) to save money by producing a common "Eurocarrier." So far, France's lack of funds any such ship and its commitment to Rafales aircraft mitigate against a merger. Nevertheless, the MoD is discussing various design matters with French experts.
Because of cost, the international political trouble stirred up by nuclear power, and advances in electric power, the British say the new carriers will use integrated full-electric propulsion, possibly with WR21 generators. Anglo-U.S. teams from Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse already are well advanced in developing all-electric power. Assuming all-electric ships, BAE designers are using the extra internal space to allow for flexible work and modular accommodation spaces, with two- or four-person cabins and other space that can be adapted according to the ship's mission. In civil disaster operations, extra hospital facilities could be installed rapidly in place of hangar space for strike aircraft; in special operations, the CVF could become a helicopter ship for carrying commandos. In addition, the extra space allows designers to build automated munitions handling. "This was one particular piece of advice I received from the U.S.," said Peter Fish, BAE's head of aviation systems for the project. "They said 'start with automated munitions handling and build around it."'
Instead of the 450 or more crew required for munitions handling on the Nimitz, the automated system will be handled by no more than 50 crew members. Because fast, efficient munitions handling is vital, the designers are planning on 500 sorties in five days, using as much as 800 tons of ordnance. The Nimitz has a crew of 3,200 and 2,480 in the air wing; it is estimated that the new British carrier will have a crew of 600, with 1,400 in the embarked squadrons and staff.
No detailed planning can be done until the type of aircraft to be embarked has been determined. That decision could be made late this month. Until recently, it was assumed the MoD would select the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the U.S. JSF, since it is scheduled to replace the Royal Navy F/A2 Sea Harriers and the Royal Air Force (RAF) GR7 Harriers. A total of 160 have been earmarked for the two services, both of which will be able to operate from the new carriers. Sea Harriers phase out in 2007 and the expected arrival of the JSF with the first new carrier is in 2012. While the financially pressed Royal Navy sees that this removes a layer from fleet air defense, it believes the gap can largely be compensated for with the longer range surface-to-air missiles on the new Type 45 destroyers and by allied (mostly U.S.) fighters. The RAF's Harriers will be upgraded to larger-engine GR9 standard, but they will have limited air-to-air capabilities, and the Sea Harrier's excellent Sea Vixen radar will not be transferred.
Because Britain's long-standing expertise in vertical takeoff is seen as a crucial factor in getting in on the ground floor with the JSF project at the Pentagon—where the RAF and Royal Navy backed the U.S. Marine Corps in balancing U.S. Air Force and Navy demands for non-STOVL models—it had been assumed that the initial requirement for a 40,000-ton carrier reflected a determination to buy only the STOVL version. However, 50,000-ton carrier designs, preferred angled flight decks, and the estimated additional 10% cost of each STOVL JSF together with its lesser range or payload as compared to the conventional CV version have suggested to experts that the latter now stands an equal chance of selection. "Our Harriers were of particular importance to us in the Cold War, when we got them off airfields and hid them under trees to attack hordes of Russian tanks crossing the Fulda Gap," said one senior RAF official, who declined to be identified. "But it looks these days as if range and payload will be more important, not VSTOL." The RAF does not appear to be passionate about it either way, although a substantial lobby remains convinced that vertical lift is the inevitable future of military and civil flight.
Another important factor for carrier designers is the maritime airborne surveillance and control aircraft, four of which will be on each new carrier. The Royal Navy does not have this type aircraft; it relies instead on carrier-based Sea King helicopters or land-based Nimrod aircraft. It could convert some of the six Merlin antisubmarine helicopters to be embarked on each carrier—or buy V-22 Ospreys, unmanned aerial vehicles, or four E-2C Hawkeyes. Although the E2C is expensive to buy and operate, it is an established surveillance and control candidate.
Northrop Grumman is part of the BAE Systems consortium, but Hawkeyes would be suitable only if the carriers had catapult launchers. While the British invented steam catapults, they consider them to be awkward, energy-demanding devices that are inconsistent with all-electric ships. Development of electromagnetic launchers might permit introduction of catapults in the future. A key related factor is the ability of the Royal Navy to work closely with allied navies that fly conventional takeoff and landing aircraft. While the MoD discounts the idea of keeping stores and equipment just to satisfy occasional visits by U.S. F/A-18 Hornets or French Rafales, it does accept that a purely STOVL ship would be of little value to allies that employ vertical landing aircraft.
Because it is estimated that the CVFs must last until 2060—when nobody can foresee what aircraft will be flying—sailors and shipbuilders are talking increasingly about large, flexible ships that can be converted to operate STOVL or catapult-launched aircraft. The Royal Navy looks for inspiration to the old Hermes, which started out as a conventional carrier and was converted to a STOVL carrier in time to serve admirably in the 1982 Falklands War. As Commodore Finlayson noted wisely, "We have got to keep our options open."
Mr. Almond is a freelance writer on defense affairs. He lives in Surrey, England.