Beg to differ (hoping I'm wrong). From the looks of the contract announcements, these are feasibility studies which will assess what the airframe / proposed mission system combo's are capable of, what the major developmental risks are, plans around them and of course, cost. Once completed, expect the phrase "I like not this answer, bring me another answer" to start making its way around the 6th floor.......

Lets face it, Merlin was always a likely contender for MASC. Could the addition of stub wings have that much of an effect on service ceiling?

N_a_b I assume you are talking about the E2 Hawkeye. But what about Osprey? Obviously if we had to pay all the development costs ourselves it would be expensive, but if we could share them with say the USMC........

Getting back onto the main topic of this thread, the carriers themselves, it occurs to me that if CVF is cancelled or bodged then that will probably be the end of major warship construction in the UK.

And whats more, the Royal Navy have made sacrifices to get these ships (paying off 3 x Type 23 frigates & several minehunters early as well as reducing SSN hulls to 8 in the near future). If the CVFs are cancelled I doubt these assets will be reinstated! :ouch: The navy will be on the verge of being relegated to a coastal defence force i.e. no meaningful global power projection capability, except Trident of course, unless they all get used up in the desert sometime soon! :ooh:

What about Osprey?

My first response to this was an extended excerpt from Napoleon XIV's classic hit "They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha Ha" but on two minutes' reflection I deleted it.

I'd really question whether (even if it works and demonstrates acceptable reliability and safety, having already suffered more mishaps than the last several EMD programs put together) it will offer much over a Merlin. Long range and endurance are achievable in theory, but not with a large payload (such as a radar) and max range is at high altitude, which is fine and dandy except that the bloody thing is unpressurized and can't be pressurized.

EV-22?
 

WEBF et al,

I thought that there was some discussion (probably on Wet Jet thread) about an AEW Osprey - IIRC, impractical (unpressurised) and madly expensive. Are we to assume from these study contracts that the CTOL option is truly dead and buried? Or can we hope that Hawkeye is sufficiently well understood that we don't need to study it, in order to make the comparisons?

S41

What about an Osprey. A tilt rotor AEW aircraft could be built I suppose, though I doubt using a rotodome for the radar woulld be feasible. Have to be a E-scan conformal antenna or antennas of some kind. Don't recall what the APS in the E-2 and the automation weighs but if there was not a lot of additional stuff could probably shoehorn it into a V-22, maybe only have 2 guys in back or something.

Presume what you get from using the V-22 (or Merlin or whatever other rotorwing a/c) is not needing cats and arresting gear, impact to ship design favorable. Problem is if you don't use VTOL/STOVL aircraft for the rest of your air wing you still have to design the ship to accept arrested landings and catipult launches. IIRC the E-2 does not generate exceptionally high loads on trap and launches easily (it is really a biplane, gets about 1/3 of it's lift from the rotodome BTW). Carrier suitability is good, pretty good to get aboard.

Jane's says stubby wings, ospreys & hawkeyes were booted off the list last summer and it's basically SK7's until they fall to bits then shift over the kit to the nearest Merlin. Maybe might happen if enough down the back of the couch is assists from unspecified UAV's as OTH relays and/or sensor platforms.

Not sure if you folks noticed there were 2 contracts awarded: Thales got one for the SK and Lockheed for the Merlin, same sort of stuff - MASC related viability studies.

sense1

The RN has indeed but cut severely for the promise of CVF. Sea Harrier axed early, fleet cut by 20% approx, future projects cut. As described here by Richard Beedall.

And it has got worse since then.

Off topic, have you see this? EYE ROBOT FLIES

Found this page on the MOD website: Carrier Strike

It would appear that there is someone in charge.

The Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) Carrier Strike's mission is to ensure that all aspects of Carrier Strike military capability are delivered on time and within budget. The current SRO is Rear Admiral Nigel Guild.

I wonder if he reads PPRuNe?

I'm afraid it's another red herring. SRO has been in post for two years now. His responsibilities are detailed in :

http://www.publications.parliament.u...83/4022509.htm

Unfortunately, no-one saw fit to give him a budget to achieve this, so the meat of the role (which is getting the CVF, JCA, MARS IPTs plus Fleet and Strike to work to the same plan) is a bit difficult.

Don't be foolled by the use of the word responsible - it doesn't mean he's in charge......

Negat....Its got BETTER since then

Better in what way? Do we have.....

More ships?
More aircraft?
More spending on upkeep, upgrades etc?
More training?

Or

None of the above, in fact less of everything?

I didn't say that we had More ships, More aircraft More money, More training.


I said it was BETTER.

Better Ships, Better aircraft, Better training....and the Money spent on Upgrades.Upkeep etc is managed Better.

Rafloo

I know what you're getting at with your argument and concur to some degree. The Stovie was getting way beyond a joke to support (particularly wrt the compressor issues discussed elsewhere) - as long as we eventually get the Air to Air capability back, it''ll all pan out.

However, better ships is debatable. The T45 will be the only operator or the WR21 turbine, cos it's crap and the LSD(A) propulsion system could have been improved upon by a six-year old with a crayon.

As for update/upkeep being better targetted, from personal experience I can guarantee that DLO has no idea where its money is going. The is a line item in a particular IPTs budget for tens of millions of £. No-one in that IPT could explain what the budget line was actually for.......

What am I missing here....an angled deck large carrier can do it all....a purpose built small carrier is limited to it's design purpose, ie. the ski ramp carrier and the Harrier.

Take off the blinders and step out of the box. Build in flexibility....don't build it out of the design.

SASless - at a stroke you demonstrate a wider understanding of the project than most in town and many in Bristol. Thankfully, the Aircraft Carrier Alliance also think broadly the same way - you can't make it any smaller and be effective. Now if only we could stop people calling it the most complex defence project in UK history (it's nowhere near complex - controversial possibly) then we might actually get the bloody thing built.

It is not beyond imagination that US Navy/Marine Corps aircraft could operate from the Carrier if it were set up to be compatible. I know the crews would make it a desired posting if for no other reason than the Curry and Beer at night. The large carrier design would then be able to operate jointly with US Fleet units.

Considering the fact our two nations seem to be tied together so closely (despite the bickering) the more we can work together makes sense it would seem.

Heaven forfend that we should do something as sensible as make our capital ships interoperable with our principal ally (not to mention our occasional ally across the Channel). We might even find that economies in the logistics set-up might accrue such as a common US/UK/FR MASC basic training pipeline (using a sensible airframe).......Ooops, forgot Pierre already does that!

If only we could put another 3-4 knots of speed on the ship we'd be laughing........

[QUOTE=SASless]What am I missing here....an angled deck large carrier can do it all....

It would also mean that we could acquire E-2 to meet the MASC requirement instead of the half measure that is the Sea King/Merlin solution. It would give our future carrier group a significantly superior capability and it would be a straight forward, off the shelf purchase.

I would be very pleased to see those at the decision making level opt for a conventional, US style carrier with cats and traps..... money (rather the lack of!) will almost certainly mean that we never see this happen though. :{

Therefore, it is almost definitely going to be Merlin as our future MASC platform. The only other real alternative is the Osprey. The only scenario in which we could concievably purchase Osprey for MASC is as part of a wider Osprey purchase in which it would meet some of the FRC (Future Rotorcraft Capability) requirement, the budget over the next 10 years for which is £4 bn. Not going to happen me thinks! :(

At the risk of kicking off yet another MOD study....has anyone looked at the cost differences between the cat trap carrier, E-2's , etc vice buying, maintaining a fleet of Merlins for the E-2's task and capability? Reliability and cost of purchase for the E-2 concept surely must be cheaper and better than the helicopter route.

God forbid the V-22 is the choice of airframe....you think other programs were disasters just hang on!:=