Future Carrier (Including Costs)
ME
No. IIRC it was beaten by the YF-16 in terms of both range potential and transonic acceleration, and both the Classic and Super, in turn, delivered less range than the brochures had promised.
No. IIRC it was beaten by the YF-16 in terms of both range potential and transonic acceleration, and both the Classic and Super, in turn, delivered less range than the brochures had promised.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. IIRC it was beaten by the YF-16 in terms of both range potential and transonic acceleration, and both the Classic and Super, in turn, delivered less range than the brochures had promised.
Maybe someone with the figures to hand can compare the F-16 to the F-18L, ie the F/A-18A with all the extra navalised bits and heavier structure removed...
Thread Starter
Going back to CVF....
As you might expect, the construction and and shipping of parts of the bow for HMS Queen Elizabeth has recieved coverage in the local newspaper, the North Devon Journal. Rightly there is a great deal of local pride in the fact that our local yard can produce work of this quality.
Aircraft carrier bow sections leave Appledore Shipyard
Yard told to take pride in its part in history
New aircraft carrier starts to take shape
The arrival of the bow sections in Rosyth is also confirmed by the Royal Navy website - here:
A hugely significant milestone was reached on Wednesday as the two modules that make up the first block of the Queen Elizabeth, the first of the new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers sailed into Scotland and under the iconic Forth Bridges following it’s journey from Babcock’s ship yard in Appledore, north Devon.
The completion of the two modules; the bulbous bow, which is similar in size to the front of a submarine and the upper bow section will collectively weigh around 400 tonnes, which is equivalent to almost 40 double decker buses and when positioned end to end will reach over 50 metres in length.
The ships will be constructed at six ship yards around the UK and each block will be transported to Rosyth for final assembly in the Number One Dock, which is the largest dry dock in the UK. Work is already underway at ship yards in Devon, Glasgow, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Tyneside, with Merseyside starting work on the Queen Elizabeth this summer.
Progress is also being made with parts of the propulsion system - see here.
Rolls-Royce has completed two significant milestones for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, with completion of the first propeller and the successful testing of the vessels’ first MT30 gas turbine.
On a more sobering note, I recently heard a senior RN Officer comment that the decisions being made in the next year or so will affect the destiny of the UK for decades to come - if not longer. This is no time for short termism.
As you might expect, the construction and and shipping of parts of the bow for HMS Queen Elizabeth has recieved coverage in the local newspaper, the North Devon Journal. Rightly there is a great deal of local pride in the fact that our local yard can produce work of this quality.
Aircraft carrier bow sections leave Appledore Shipyard
Yard told to take pride in its part in history
New aircraft carrier starts to take shape
The arrival of the bow sections in Rosyth is also confirmed by the Royal Navy website - here:
A hugely significant milestone was reached on Wednesday as the two modules that make up the first block of the Queen Elizabeth, the first of the new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers sailed into Scotland and under the iconic Forth Bridges following it’s journey from Babcock’s ship yard in Appledore, north Devon.
The completion of the two modules; the bulbous bow, which is similar in size to the front of a submarine and the upper bow section will collectively weigh around 400 tonnes, which is equivalent to almost 40 double decker buses and when positioned end to end will reach over 50 metres in length.
The ships will be constructed at six ship yards around the UK and each block will be transported to Rosyth for final assembly in the Number One Dock, which is the largest dry dock in the UK. Work is already underway at ship yards in Devon, Glasgow, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Tyneside, with Merseyside starting work on the Queen Elizabeth this summer.
Progress is also being made with parts of the propulsion system - see here.
Rolls-Royce has completed two significant milestones for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers, Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, with completion of the first propeller and the successful testing of the vessels’ first MT30 gas turbine.
On a more sobering note, I recently heard a senior RN Officer comment that the decisions being made in the next year or so will affect the destiny of the UK for decades to come - if not longer. This is no time for short termism.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 13th Apr 2010 at 12:46.
Guest
Posts: n/a
F-35 C Drop Test
Last edited by BUCC09; 12th Apr 2010 at 12:45. Reason: Add 'visual aids'
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets stop infighting and get the carriers and jets
Having read this thread on and off for a while (and dropped a few light hearted comments on the way), I just wanted to give my tuppence worth.
We need the two aircraft carriers now more than we have done for years, and certainly more than we have done since the Wall came down. The rest of the world is tooling up, with everyone from India to Thailand getting in on the act. Other countries are also building as fast as they can; even Australia is getting back “in the groove”.
Two sites of interest are WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Home Page (remember this list is growing), and Asia bent on acquiring aircraft carriers - upiasia.com ( a very informed and accurate analysis)
Yes, I know the definition of an aircraft carrier versus an amphibious assault carrier, versus a helicopter cruiser, etc, etc; but that didn’t stop us from quite successfully operating tiny little flat tops in a multitude of roles, did it? The difference now is that there are a lot more “players” in the game, and these guys are willing to spend big bucks to buy the best ships for themselves. In order to “protect and project”, we need to provide our navy with the tools they need to do the job, any job they may be asked to do. Don’t forget we are an island with responsibility for protectorates and peoples world wide, without the Royal Navy to help police OUR responsibilities it doesn’t matter how good your Army or your Air Force is. (you can move Australia on a map to prove CAP capability, but not in real life.).
These ships have already been paid for by early decommissioning of other vessels, reduced buys of new assets, and goodness knows what other cuts to the Navy’s budget. If you must complain about a waste of what is actually “not a lot” of money for a lot of weapon, then think about how it stacks up against other procurements, and how much they offer in return! If that still doesn’t convince you, then think of how much the Olympics will cost; could that have been staged as the “austere” Olympics, utilising existing sporting venues and facilities? Nowhere other than London will see any major income from the Olympics (so what if the sailing is at Portland), and we’ll all be paying for it years later and wondering if it was worth it.
When a carrier group hauls refugees out of a war zone, or captures a pirate ship, or launches aircraft to support a ground engagement, you know it’s worth it.
I’ve worked with the RAF on board, and they’re not a bad bunch (those moustaches are a bad idea on “up channel” night though), but if you think that a squadron can just embark, play at flying their petrol pigeons and then disembark, you are wrong. The RAF top brass reckon they can do just that and there is no need for a “Fleet Air Arm”, that just goes to show how out of touch they are with reality (the last “head honcho” anyway).
The FAA are sailors first, then aircraft operators. They all know how to use submersible pumps, how to do a four man re-entry and what a “gunter baton” is for (measuring). When embarked, the air group are part of the ships company, not passengers, (although trying to get the fish heads to understand the WAFUS work defence watches ALL the time is often fruitless), as such they are fully integrated into the ship’s manpower scheme. If you are going to train (and keep current) RAF men to do the same thing then why not permanently attach them to sea duties and call them something appropriate, like, hey! I know; the Fleet Air Arm (of the RAF). Too long? How about just the “Fleet Air Arm”.
The penny pinchers have already nearly killed the Harrier (thanks to clever “timber shifting” by the RAF), lets get the ships, get the new jet (before we lose the knowledge to operate it) and let the Navy and any other UK force who need a mobile airfield do their job. They are UK assets, not just RN!
Rant over, Cheers
We need the two aircraft carriers now more than we have done for years, and certainly more than we have done since the Wall came down. The rest of the world is tooling up, with everyone from India to Thailand getting in on the act. Other countries are also building as fast as they can; even Australia is getting back “in the groove”.
Two sites of interest are WorldWideAircraftCarriers.com - Home Page (remember this list is growing), and Asia bent on acquiring aircraft carriers - upiasia.com ( a very informed and accurate analysis)
Yes, I know the definition of an aircraft carrier versus an amphibious assault carrier, versus a helicopter cruiser, etc, etc; but that didn’t stop us from quite successfully operating tiny little flat tops in a multitude of roles, did it? The difference now is that there are a lot more “players” in the game, and these guys are willing to spend big bucks to buy the best ships for themselves. In order to “protect and project”, we need to provide our navy with the tools they need to do the job, any job they may be asked to do. Don’t forget we are an island with responsibility for protectorates and peoples world wide, without the Royal Navy to help police OUR responsibilities it doesn’t matter how good your Army or your Air Force is. (you can move Australia on a map to prove CAP capability, but not in real life.).
These ships have already been paid for by early decommissioning of other vessels, reduced buys of new assets, and goodness knows what other cuts to the Navy’s budget. If you must complain about a waste of what is actually “not a lot” of money for a lot of weapon, then think about how it stacks up against other procurements, and how much they offer in return! If that still doesn’t convince you, then think of how much the Olympics will cost; could that have been staged as the “austere” Olympics, utilising existing sporting venues and facilities? Nowhere other than London will see any major income from the Olympics (so what if the sailing is at Portland), and we’ll all be paying for it years later and wondering if it was worth it.
When a carrier group hauls refugees out of a war zone, or captures a pirate ship, or launches aircraft to support a ground engagement, you know it’s worth it.
I’ve worked with the RAF on board, and they’re not a bad bunch (those moustaches are a bad idea on “up channel” night though), but if you think that a squadron can just embark, play at flying their petrol pigeons and then disembark, you are wrong. The RAF top brass reckon they can do just that and there is no need for a “Fleet Air Arm”, that just goes to show how out of touch they are with reality (the last “head honcho” anyway).
The FAA are sailors first, then aircraft operators. They all know how to use submersible pumps, how to do a four man re-entry and what a “gunter baton” is for (measuring). When embarked, the air group are part of the ships company, not passengers, (although trying to get the fish heads to understand the WAFUS work defence watches ALL the time is often fruitless), as such they are fully integrated into the ship’s manpower scheme. If you are going to train (and keep current) RAF men to do the same thing then why not permanently attach them to sea duties and call them something appropriate, like, hey! I know; the Fleet Air Arm (of the RAF). Too long? How about just the “Fleet Air Arm”.
The penny pinchers have already nearly killed the Harrier (thanks to clever “timber shifting” by the RAF), lets get the ships, get the new jet (before we lose the knowledge to operate it) and let the Navy and any other UK force who need a mobile airfield do their job. They are UK assets, not just RN!
Rant over, Cheers
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree wholeheartedly (I wasn't aware of anyone on the thread questioning the necessity of the carriers) mostly I thought we were arguing about the best aircraft for them. I vote for EMALS catapults and the navalised version of the F-35 - but I would be quite happy with the new two seat FA-18 which we could have immediately.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: troon
Age: 61
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like, hey! I know; the Fleet Air Arm (of the RAF)
... Or how about 2 RAF's
(1) The Royal Air Force of the British Army
and
(2) The Royal Air Force of the Royal Navy.
Each RAF could Assimilate to the Training, Tradion, Uniform and Military Ethos of its parent service. The Support of these RAF's could be a common Home Command where Training and Aircraft support could be shared.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That looks as sensible as having a Royal Air Force with an Air Command and a Support Command (wearing the rig they have now) and, in addition, a Land Command (wearing the multicolour swop shop blue/brown/green rig the Army has now) and a Sea Command (who may continue to wear a smart uniform).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dat581
Originally Posted by LowObservable
No. IIRC it was beaten by the YF-16 in terms of both range potential and transonic acceleration, and both the Classic and Super, in turn, delivered less range than the brochures had promised.
Maybe someone with the figures to hand can compare the F-16 to the F-18L, ie the F/A-18A with all the extra navalised bits and heavier structure removed...
The issue is indeed mainly with the engines (although there was a small amount of extra drag in the Hornet, it was only of minor importance).
The F100 (turbofan) has a specific fuel consumption of .76 lb fuel/lb thrust/hour (take-off).
The F404 (turbofan) has a SFC of .80 (t.o.).
The SFC of the F404, which was developed for the F/A-18 (from the J101 turbojet of the YF-17, itself an experimental engine), was represented by General Electric to be lower than the F100... despite having just started full-scale development.
Accordingly, the fuel tankage of the Hornet was designed for sufficient fuel to meet the required range with the expected fuel usage. When the engine never got near the SFC GE had promised, it was too late to increase internal fuel tankage, leaving the aircraft with a shorter-than-planned range.
The F414, despite being a slightly improved F404 (mainly through increasing the inlet size, to increase air-mass flow through the engine, to increase thrust), actually has a worse SFC... .853 (t.o.)!
Add in the added drag caused by having to cant the inner wing weapons pylons a few degrees outboard to correct a problem with release clearances for some weapons, and the Super Hornet is also shorter-ranged than planned (although still longer-ranged than the Hornet due to much larger internal tanks).
Compare the above SFCs with those of the Spey/TF-41... with virtually identical non-reheated thrust, the Spey & TF-41 (up-powered Spey for the A-7D/E) both had a SFC around .65 (t.o.)... far better than the F404/414 (or the F100, for that matter).
Yes, the Spey is heavier & of larger diameter, but still...
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fly Navy
For F&&& sake, keep the FAA separate & give them Harrier 2+ while they're available cheap !
F-35 in whatever guise is still years away and we need an AMRAAM & gun equipped Harrier right now...
Does no-one read history any more ?
FAA !
F-35 in whatever guise is still years away and we need an AMRAAM & gun equipped Harrier right now...
Does no-one read history any more ?
FAA !
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
For F&&& sake, keep the FAA separate & give them Harrier 2+ while they're available cheap !
The USMC and other AV8B/B+ operators need all the airframes they have to last till the JSF arrives.
Where, exactly, is this supply of cheap Harrier 2+ you speak of?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
00,
ORAC is quite right. The only hope you've got is if the Obama administration gets rid of the Dave-B and tells the USMC to go for an updated II+ or to fly Dave-C from CVs.
Of course, if CVF is binned in the SDR - and CVS with it - then the question becomes rather moot.
S41
ORAC is quite right. The only hope you've got is if the Obama administration gets rid of the Dave-B and tells the USMC to go for an updated II+ or to fly Dave-C from CVs.
Of course, if CVF is binned in the SDR - and CVS with it - then the question becomes rather moot.
S41