Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
SSSETOWTF,
Yes, the C is just over 2.5K heavier than the B at zero fuel weight, and a thrust/weight ratio at 50% fuel of 0.91 compared to 1.04. On the other hand it has a wing area of 668sq ft compared to 460sq ft, so I'll take advice on how they'd compare in a fight.
As to being bigger/heavier, it depends. I always preferred the Lightning to the F4 when controlling DACT, but I'd have preferred to go to war with 4+4 missiles than 2.
The C carries 50% more internal fuel (19.5K compared to 13.3K) and 10K more MAUW, and operating from a carrier without AAR support that's significant.
As the saying goes, 3 of the most useless things in the world to a pilot are runway behind, sky above you and fuel on the ground.
There might be the very, very odd time you get sucked into a dogfight where the performance edge might matter. I'd suggest there'll be many, many more times you'd prefer the extra fuel in the tank.
Yes, the C is just over 2.5K heavier than the B at zero fuel weight, and a thrust/weight ratio at 50% fuel of 0.91 compared to 1.04. On the other hand it has a wing area of 668sq ft compared to 460sq ft, so I'll take advice on how they'd compare in a fight.
As to being bigger/heavier, it depends. I always preferred the Lightning to the F4 when controlling DACT, but I'd have preferred to go to war with 4+4 missiles than 2.
The C carries 50% more internal fuel (19.5K compared to 13.3K) and 10K more MAUW, and operating from a carrier without AAR support that's significant.
As the saying goes, 3 of the most useless things in the world to a pilot are runway behind, sky above you and fuel on the ground.
There might be the very, very odd time you get sucked into a dogfight where the performance edge might matter. I'd suggest there'll be many, many more times you'd prefer the extra fuel in the tank.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF,
Thanks for the info', I thought the scares sounded a bit fishy for such a project.
You may be a highly esteemed ex-colleague of mine, ( beginning with 'G' ) if not you're not far away from him !
DZ
Thanks for the info', I thought the scares sounded a bit fishy for such a project.
You may be a highly esteemed ex-colleague of mine, ( beginning with 'G' ) if not you're not far away from him !
DZ
she is a Commissioned Warship in the Royal Navy
. Perhaps we should get more of the Armed Forces registered as a charity
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The Guardian has reported both carriers have been given the go-ahead after todays meeting.
The FT also says Cameron has backed both carriers and I quote 'His preferred option is to redesign the second vessel, delay production, and buy the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, rather than the planned jump-jet variant.
Janes says Converteam readies EMCAT for new UK Royal Navy aircraft carrier launch trials
Converteam UK is working to complete a scaled-up design of its electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT) system that will be capable of launching the F-35C variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from the UK Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The company specialises in power conversion systems and has been contracted by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to develop a 100 m-long EMCAT design that could fit into a 1.5 m-deep well under the flight deck of a 65,000-ton carrier "
Jane's International Defence Review
Navy to get aircraft carriers despite defence cuts | UK news | The Guardian
The FT also says Cameron has backed both carriers and I quote 'His preferred option is to redesign the second vessel, delay production, and buy the conventional Joint Strike Fighter, rather than the planned jump-jet variant.
Janes says Converteam readies EMCAT for new UK Royal Navy aircraft carrier launch trials
Converteam UK is working to complete a scaled-up design of its electromagnetic catapult (EMCAT) system that will be capable of launching the F-35C variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from the UK Royal Navy's new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. The company specialises in power conversion systems and has been contracted by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) to develop a 100 m-long EMCAT design that could fit into a 1.5 m-deep well under the flight deck of a 65,000-ton carrier "
Jane's International Defence Review
Navy to get aircraft carriers despite defence cuts | UK news | The Guardian
Last edited by oldnotbold; 13th Oct 2010 at 01:13.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMS Victory does not have a 'notional' status, she is a Commissioned Warship in the Royal Navy.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RN aren't out of the woods yet.
Unless Queen Elizabeth is retrofitted with EMALS (which feels like "will we even get the carriers" all over again) they will only have fixed wing carrier capability when Prince of Wales is not in refit.
Unless Queen Elizabeth is retrofitted with EMALS (which feels like "will we even get the carriers" all over again) they will only have fixed wing carrier capability when Prince of Wales is not in refit.
Well at least the RN Fleet Air Arm must be fairly happy right now
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the speculation in the past (carriers to be sold to the Indians, French sharing, F-18s, JSF gone, marinated Typhoons, mothballs), I won't believe it until I see it officially announced next week, although it does sound a bit more realistic than some of the guff that has been printed in the last few years.
As this article is only available on subscription, is this a confirmed change to the EMCAT programme that was already in place for a scaled-up system, or just a bit of Miss Marple-type deduction using an old recycled story from the summer in an attempt to prove that the carriers will indeed operate the F-35C?
Janes says Converteam readies EMCAT for new UK Royal Navy aircraft carrier launch trials.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Liam Fox in The Times today:
........Compounding this problem was the decision to order aircraft carriers that are not fully interoperable with our two closest allies - The United States and France [ ]. Neither the French Rafale nor the US Navy's planned version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) could take or land from our carriers.
The design of the carriers also meant the variant of the JSF as planned is the most expensive. Now we find ourselves in an impossible position. Cancelling the carriers would cost almost as much as building them and would mean the end of the British shipbuilding industry. But getting the carriers right would take longer and is likely to cost more.......
........Compounding this problem was the decision to order aircraft carriers that are not fully interoperable with our two closest allies - The United States and France [
]. Neither the French Rafale nor the US Navy's planned version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) could take or land from our carriers.The design of the carriers also meant the variant of the JSF as planned is the most expensive. Now we find ourselves in an impossible position. Cancelling the carriers would cost almost as much as building them and would mean the end of the British shipbuilding industry. But getting the carriers right would take longer and is likely to cost more.......
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read that just a moment ago. Doesn't make it any clearer does it Orac? On the one hand, he is blasting the lack of capability to cross deck aircraft by sticking to the Dave B, but on the other says it will cost more money and delay to equip them to do so. Nothing in Fox's piece is clear about what will be announced next week.
Is that a verbatim quote of Fox, or is it journalistic interpretation? Strikes me as an unusual choice of words not least because, as Mick points out, it suggests that none of the ways forward is acceptable.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a report today on BBC Radio 4 stating that Robert Gates has put a hold on future US carriers due to concerns over their survivability in the face of the new generation of Chinese and Russian hypersonic anti-ship missiles.
Surely the smart thing to do with the QE's is make them UCAV-carriers?
I would expect value for money to be much higher plus they would pack a larger offensive punch per ship.
Surely the smart thing to do with the QE's is make them UCAV-carriers?
I would expect value for money to be much higher plus they would pack a larger offensive punch per ship.
As an outsider and non military person this may not be my place to comment, and this has probably been covered before, But:
As the two new carriers are the biggest ships the RN have ever had, why cannot they be fitted with conventional steam cat. and arrester gear to operate conventional aircraft and give inter-operabality with our allies?
There appears to be plenty of room for an angle deck for landing.
Why do we need a STOVL aircraft which by its very design is not going to be as capable as a non STOVL type?
Just wondering.
As the two new carriers are the biggest ships the RN have ever had, why cannot they be fitted with conventional steam cat. and arrester gear to operate conventional aircraft and give inter-operabality with our allies?
There appears to be plenty of room for an angle deck for landing.
Why do we need a STOVL aircraft which by its very design is not going to be as capable as a non STOVL type?
Just wondering.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dixi188
Quite a long time ago in this story (sorry mess / debacle / fiasco / utter fiasco / pi$$ing of cash up against the largest wall in Christendom) it was decided that the CVF was to "convertible" from STOVL to cats'n'traps (CATOBAR) - around 2002 IIRC, though those closer to the project will give you the exact date.
If I understand the detail correctly, HMS QE is probably too far along to be converted until its first major refit, but HMS PoW can be completed with cats'n'traps (which is what the RN - entirely sensibly - wanted all along as far as I can work out). Well, we'll find out next week...
Hope this helps
S41
As the two new carriers are the biggest ships the RN have ever had, why cannot they be fitted with conventional steam cat. and arrester gear to operate conventional aircraft and give inter-operabality with our allies?
There appears to be plenty of room for an angle deck for landing.
There appears to be plenty of room for an angle deck for landing.
If I understand the detail correctly, HMS QE is probably too far along to be converted until its first major refit, but HMS PoW can be completed with cats'n'traps (which is what the RN - entirely sensibly - wanted all along as far as I can work out). Well, we'll find out next week...
Hope this helps
S41