Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Suspicion breeds confidence
Actually the CVS do have a pretty deep draft for their size, but as the previous post point its weight distribution that counts. Not much problem with moving Harriers around the deck these days as none are available fore naval ops.
Both CVS and Vengeance's islands are pretty much where you'd expect them to be....
Vengeance is on the shell line to allow for boiler uptakes and maximise the hangar width, but has had an alaskan highway added for easy access for personnel and RAS serials. CVS had the highway built in from the start as by then it had been recognised as a good idea.
Vengeance is on the shell line to allow for boiler uptakes and maximise the hangar width, but has had an alaskan highway added for easy access for personnel and RAS serials. CVS had the highway built in from the start as by then it had been recognised as a good idea.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vinnys islands are quite a way inboard and the uptakes impinge upon the hangar width. Earlier carriers had the islands built outboard (esp the Majestics) to give a clear deck and max the hangar width. I'd often wondered if the positioning of the Vinny islands was more to do with aesthetics- ie to make them look more like cruisers to any passing rabidly anti-carrier labour politicians? 
You've been reading Leo Marriots book (or was it Beavers?) - certainly makes a convincing case in terms of the length of the island! However, the impact on the hangar is mainly to keep the GT uptakes & downtakes nice and regular to minimise losses. Also allows sensible sized RAS positions iwo the island.
Thread Starter
And all this from my questions about flight decks! Now what was it I was saying about aircraft operations affecting the design of the entire ship?
Going back to MASC for a moment, what is the proposed "Enhanced Manned Rotary Wing Solution" that the Naval Technology CVF page speaks of?
Going back to MASC for a moment, what is the proposed "Enhanced Manned Rotary Wing Solution" that the Naval Technology CVF page speaks of?
If we're lucky the Enhanced solution will be a Merlin with all-new transmission and a state of the art sensor/datalink combo. Of course if we're unlucky, the "enhanced" solution will be ASaC7 with new blades.....If only we had a cat n trap ship we could have a real MASC capable of doing strike control and airspace management, as the original MASC requirement (as opposed to FOAEW) intended!
Was reading in JDW last week that the red sea pedestrians are testing conformal electronically scanned arrays on a G-V. Would be very nice married to an S3 or E2 airframe......
Was reading in JDW last week that the red sea pedestrians are testing conformal electronically scanned arrays on a G-V. Would be very nice married to an S3 or E2 airframe......
Thread Starter
As you might expect, Lockheed Martin UK has a page on MASC.
Shouldn't that Merlin have stub wings?
Lockheed Martin are also investigating enhanced Rotary Wing solutions where our approach is to propose the best value Rotary Wing solution to meet the User Requirement Document as an Airborne Early Warning and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance asset, covering force protection, littoral manoeuvre and force projection.
Why not consider using another airframe? Chinook perhaps? Greater altitude therefore greater radar range, better range and speed, and lots of room for people and equipment. Unfortunately, the rotors don't fold, so it takes up a lot of space on deck. I also think the priority for any new Chinooks would be the Support Helicopter role.
What about the V22 Osprey? The USMC intend to operate it as sea. I am sure that somewhere I've seen an image of what an Osprey with an array antenna attached to the fuselage.
Shouldn't that Merlin have stub wings?
Lockheed Martin are also investigating enhanced Rotary Wing solutions where our approach is to propose the best value Rotary Wing solution to meet the User Requirement Document as an Airborne Early Warning and Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance asset, covering force protection, littoral manoeuvre and force projection.
Why not consider using another airframe? Chinook perhaps? Greater altitude therefore greater radar range, better range and speed, and lots of room for people and equipment. Unfortunately, the rotors don't fold, so it takes up a lot of space on deck. I also think the priority for any new Chinooks would be the Support Helicopter role.
What about the V22 Osprey? The USMC intend to operate it as sea. I am sure that somewhere I've seen an image of what an Osprey with an array antenna attached to the fuselage.
Never, never, never, never attempt to operate a Wokka from a crowded deck for an extended period. It wouldn't actually improve on a Merlin much - the main problems are limited altitude and cruise speed. To have a real MASC you need to get to FL200 (at least) and 300kts cruise, with a good 4-5 hours in the air. Wokka is not a brilliant solution for FRC (HEAVY) either. I know the Odiham SH lads have made it work on Ark & Ocean, but if you had the chance to fix the lift size / folding rotor problem, you would wouldn't you.....
CH53K (the new build Sikorsky) is a much better bet, but apparently it's been wished away on the grounds that its MAUM exceeds Oceans flightdeck. How long to people think Ocean will have left to serve by the time FRC(H) enters service? Another gash decision in DEC/DPA.......
V22 was looked at, but have you seen it fold?
CH53K (the new build Sikorsky) is a much better bet, but apparently it's been wished away on the grounds that its MAUM exceeds Oceans flightdeck. How long to people think Ocean will have left to serve by the time FRC(H) enters service? Another gash decision in DEC/DPA.......
V22 was looked at, but have you seen it fold?
Suspicion breeds confidence
Osprey is a red herring. Too expensive by far and it would be a UK only requirement so UK PLC would have to pay all the development costs. If you want to be in thew big league then its the E2. If you want to play in the smaller leagues then helos are fine. They are however relatively static, they can't accompany a strike and post Shar very tempting targets as the RN found out in the Bay of Bangal last year.
My take on this may be wrong, but I notice the Sunday Times today reports the FRES ISD will be delayed five years until 2017. (The ISD for the APC version of FRES was to have been 2008 with other variants delivered during the next 4 years). This looks a fine opportunity to free up funds in the correct timescale for CVF/JSF/MASC. Not sure what the troops in vulnerable paper thin vehicles will think though.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, but....
Tuc/Navaleye...
Obviously you would chose to have E-2D (or whatever Hawkeye NG is called this week) for MASC, which would then mean cats'n'traps on this supposedly "convertrible" design... which would allow us to buy Dave-C and be done with it
But whatever would Wittering and the Harrier-mafia do with Dave-C?
C'mon people!! E-2D and Dave-C; you know it's the right answer!!
S41
Obviously you would chose to have E-2D (or whatever Hawkeye NG is called this week) for MASC, which would then mean cats'n'traps on this supposedly "convertrible" design... which would allow us to buy Dave-C and be done with it
But whatever would Wittering and the Harrier-mafia do with Dave-C?
C'mon people!! E-2D and Dave-C; you know it's the right answer!!
S41
Suspicion breeds confidence
If as reported in the press at the weekend the significant delays to FRES could have some positive implications for RAF and RN projects. It was widely accepted that their was not enough money in the pot to fund CVF, MARS, JCA and FRES at the same time. With FRES slipping by as much as a decade, that eases the strain on cashflow and hopefully will enable these projects to move ahead.
Not good news for the grunts though as the Warriors will have to soldier on for another 10 years.
Cyril,
Its quite possible they are interested, but I'm not aware of any operational require for the USMC to have its own AEW capability as they operate in conjunction with the Hawkeye from the USN. Its more likely that a UAV based solution would adopted, but I would like to be proved wrong. The UK on the otherhand will simply buy whatever is cheapest that comes close to matching the requirement - or water down the requirement until it matches whatever is cheapest
Not good news for the grunts though as the Warriors will have to soldier on for another 10 years.
Cyril,
Its quite possible they are interested, but I'm not aware of any operational require for the USMC to have its own AEW capability as they operate in conjunction with the Hawkeye from the USN. Its more likely that a UAV based solution would adopted, but I would like to be proved wrong. The UK on the otherhand will simply buy whatever is cheapest that comes close to matching the requirement - or water down the requirement until it matches whatever is cheapest
Last edited by Navaleye; 15th Jan 2007 at 09:01.
Navaleye
"Warriors will have to soldier on for another 10 years"
I understood FRES would complement, or be used instead of, Warrior; but not replace it. It will replace, primarily, Saxon and CVR(T) series. The important thing about these vehicles (not Warrior) is they are "C130 compliant", but not all FRES variants need be. What is actually achieved with FRES drives the C130 and A400 fleet sizes, and hence has a disproportonate effect on the wider defence budget (in addition to the projected £14Bn cost of FRES).
The Times article suggests it has been realised (rather belatedly) that FRES needs better self protection but in meeting this "new" requirement the weight should not increase. I suspect other issues include lengthy development of hybrid drives, but that is another story. If they cannot achieve the necessary spec to permit C130 use, then I assume more A400s would be needed.
I see an inter-service bunfight coming. If other Army programmes have been salami sliced to bolster FRES funding, they may not take kindly to CVF getting the money.
Sorry to dwell on Land programmes here, but the relationship with Air is obvious.
"Warriors will have to soldier on for another 10 years"
I understood FRES would complement, or be used instead of, Warrior; but not replace it. It will replace, primarily, Saxon and CVR(T) series. The important thing about these vehicles (not Warrior) is they are "C130 compliant", but not all FRES variants need be. What is actually achieved with FRES drives the C130 and A400 fleet sizes, and hence has a disproportonate effect on the wider defence budget (in addition to the projected £14Bn cost of FRES).
The Times article suggests it has been realised (rather belatedly) that FRES needs better self protection but in meeting this "new" requirement the weight should not increase. I suspect other issues include lengthy development of hybrid drives, but that is another story. If they cannot achieve the necessary spec to permit C130 use, then I assume more A400s would be needed.
I see an inter-service bunfight coming. If other Army programmes have been salami sliced to bolster FRES funding, they may not take kindly to CVF getting the money.
Sorry to dwell on Land programmes here, but the relationship with Air is obvious.
Thread Starter
The Hawkeye can operate off of a ski ramp, but cannot do a vertical landing obviously.
Does anyone know of the shipboard trials involving funny aircraft from the Isle of Wight spoken of here?
If the Islander/Defender can operate from a CVS (how does it land I wonder?) then surely a bigger and better version can operate from a bigger, better flight deck - and carry a radar to a greater range and height than a helicopter?
Does anyone know of the shipboard trials involving funny aircraft from the Isle of Wight spoken of here?
If the Islander/Defender can operate from a CVS (how does it land I wonder?) then surely a bigger and better version can operate from a bigger, better flight deck - and carry a radar to a greater range and height than a helicopter?
Islander carrier operations
An Islander was operated successfully off Hermes in, I think, 1968, or thereabouts. B-N was hoping to convince the RN to use it as a COD aircraft. We had no aircraft embarked at the time, so it was able to use the straight deck. It did a free landing, stopping comfortably about halfway down the deck. After the nobs had got out and gone for coffee, or whatever, we pushed the aircraft back and it was flown, free take-off, two or three more times to give a 'trip round the bay' to whoever wanted it. The nobs came back, aircraft flew off, and that was that.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schiller
Thats fascinating. I've often wondered if something like an Islander could carry a Sea Kings baggy out the door- but higher and longer?
Presumably there'd be a little more room inside the cabin for a loo and a microwave as well?
Thats fascinating. I've often wondered if something like an Islander could carry a Sea Kings baggy out the door- but higher and longer?
Presumably there'd be a little more room inside the cabin for a loo and a microwave as well?
