A closer look at CVF

[Navaleye]

A closer look at the Thales CVF model displayed at Euronaval.

Thanks to 7seas for the link (http://members.home.nl/7seas/CVF.htm)

[althenick]

Navaleye

Nice looking Model - And that's about as far as the project will get under this government :{

... Looking at it again - I think the Aircraft are out of scale to the Carrier. Either the carriers are going to be larger than 60,000 tonnes or we're getting the cost reduced (Midget) variant of F35B. In which case I hope there aren't any pilot's out there over 4'8" who want to fly it:p

Jackonicko what do you think of the new RAF 'Air Bases'

:D

[Bismark]

Looks to scale to me - 2 JSF will fit side by side on each lift.

[SSSETOWTF]

I was wondering, did we ever consider including some amphibious assault capability with CVF? I'm afraid I'm tainted by my experience with the USMC, but the LHAs/LHDs they float around on, which are almost exactly the same dimensions as our CVS, are designed around the premise of transporting 2200 grunts to the fight, putting them ashore and then acting as the base for air support until the first FOBs are open. It means that parking an LHD off foreign shores can demonstrate significantly more intent and capability than good old Lusty.

Second question - where's the Quarterdeck?

Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly

[Razor61]

The Royal Navy has HMS Ocean for the amphibious/helo role (with no Harriers unlike Wasp/Tarawa class) but that of course did not stop them using the Invincible class Carriers as support for the Royal Marines operating in theatre with marines and helicopters onboard instead of the Sea Harrier and Harrier GR7.

IMHO, the new CVF is one of the ugliest looking carriers i have seen designed, along with the old HMS Hermes the Ski-Jump is rather large and bulky compared with the newer ski-jump fitted to the carriers nowadays.

On another note, why do the designs of all of our warships seem to be rather much slower than that of other European and US designs...?

[c-bert]

CVF is designed to have a significant overfill capacity for SF and the like although it is obviously not specifically designed to support amphibious ops.

Our vessels are all diesel powered unlike our French and US cousins who have the luxury of big fast nuclear power sources. The greens won't let us. Ho hum.

Where is the Quarterdeck on a normal carrier?

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Why are they slower? Cost. The CVS was designed for 30 knots maximum speed, Ocean was built using COTS systems and can oly do 18 knots. Hence in Sierra Leone they had to wait several days for her to catch up.

However, most of the time a warship will not exceed about 15 knots, either in peacetime transit or whilst on operational tasks. A carrier might be different because of the need for wind over the flight deck.

There is another issue here: the relationship between power outputed by the propulsion system and speed is not linear. If if takes x amount of power to provide a speed of y knots, then 2x power will only increase the speed by a little bit.

Has the propulsion for CVF been decided yet? Surely if it was a choice between the diesel electric system like the one the Albion class has or the new extra efficient gas turbine being developed for the Type 45 (as efficient as a diesel engine, although perhaps not quite as efficient as a desiel engine being run as a generator at a constant speed) the latter would be a better choice.

[bad livin']

WEBF, can we clear something up here? Did you ever actually get into the mob? Not that I'm questioning your credibility or your right to post here....

[c-bert]

The final decision on propulsion has not yet been made. However, CVF will use a number of RR MT30 GTs and a number of Diesel gen sets.
The MT30s will not be podded as origially planned and we can't afford the 4 originally suggested.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Errrr.........ok confession time.

I tried to join as a WE Officer. Failed AIB. Advised to try becoming an Artificer. Refused for bad eyesight. Launched medical appeal. Won. Joined. Got kicked out very quickly - not going to go into the reasons in depth here - but kit, PT and drill and just being crap sums it up.

After various moans and groans I joined the RNR to try to prove I could meet the required standards. Unfortnately a number of delays due to both fitness and medical problems delayed me and it was January in this year that I finally did the RNR course at Raleigh. Cetain snags were present during this course and this, coupled with the delays and personal issues (esp confidence) that led to me deciding not to try to re enter the regular Service. This way MY decision, not anybody else's. Even if I got back in and got through the training, the chances are I would be frustrated as things went differently to what I would have liked.

So I've decided to stay a reservist, and am currently trying to transfer to a more hannds on, sea going branch. It is unlikely I will find myself aboard a HM Ship for anything other than training (I did a little bit of time in a T42 several months ago), but will have a front line role aboard RFAs or chartered vessels.

I don't know if this answers your question. I know I'm crap but I'm trying my best..........just ain't got the right stuff.

Incidently most of my above comments are based on a lecture on ME stuff - from the person who was the main one in throwing me out.

:{

[Jimlad]

oh god, you mean you're staying in the RNR - please please please promise you'll never come to my RTC.

[moggiee]

As for ships built using COTS being slow, aren't the container ships that scoot ascross the atlantic and pacific capable of a sustained 40 kts or so in the right sea conditions?

NB: this is based on memories of Michael Palin going around the world in 80 days.

[c-bert]

Yes and almost as importantly in a 25 year life guess how many days a supertanker spends in dry dock................20.

Compare that to Invincible's 2 carriers in, 1 out affair.

[airborne_artist]

moggiee - fair weather design speed for a laden post Panamax ocean-going container vessel is 25 kts ~ 40 kmh. As WEBF states, you'd need a shed load of power to achieve 40 kts for a vessel that size.

I briefly served in HMS Sabre - a fast training boat with two Avon gas turbines (marinised Britannia engines) - she would do > 50 kts at about 250 litres per hour. On the diesels at 15 kts she was using about 10% of that.

[dmanton300]

the Ski-Jump is rather large and bulky compared with the newer ski-jump fitted to the carriers nowadays.

It'll be gone shortly, when the USMC are told the STOVL JSF is a no go on cost grounds, the R(N)AF (Royal Naval Air Force) will not be able to go it alone and will not be allowed to buy F-35C and the government prevaricates for another 12 years before deciding to buy the Foch from the Brazilians and are offered a good deal on 24 slightly used Skyhawks. . .

[bad livin']

I like the cut of Dmanton's jib. WEBF, wasn't trying to be mean.

[Navaleye]

The model looks to scale to me. Looks like a larger, modern version of Hermes. Trust me, it will have a quarter deck. With a deck park, it should comfortably hold 50 F35s. You can just about squeeze 20 Harriers on a CVS on 1/3 tonnage.

[TC27]

Best thing for the RAF and FAA would be the scrapping of the STOVL F35, means you'll get nice A and C versions with greater range and payload.

Apparantly I am not alone in this views, the CVF design has space for catapults and arresting wires..........

[bad livin']

The quarter deck is indeed vital. Without it, there would be nowhere for lofty to a)tab up b)loaf and tab up c)loaf and talk on his/her mobile while tabbing up.