Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Couple of points...
If anyone succeeds in making a CV-based UCAV work - and the hardware now exists to do it - DLT is a non-factor. Maverick-types won't like it, but the logic is impeccable.
Also, there's weirdness around the electromagnetic launch program. Understand that EMALS people have been told not to talk to the RN or UK MoD. Why should that be? So as to not rock the STOVL boat?
Yes, there is risk in EMALS... but it's under a 5-year SDD contract to be finished in 2009, including tests at Lakehurst. By that time, Dave-B will have been flying for only a year. Choose your risk.
If anyone succeeds in making a CV-based UCAV work - and the hardware now exists to do it - DLT is a non-factor. Maverick-types won't like it, but the logic is impeccable.
Also, there's weirdness around the electromagnetic launch program. Understand that EMALS people have been told not to talk to the RN or UK MoD. Why should that be? So as to not rock the STOVL boat?
Yes, there is risk in EMALS... but it's under a 5-year SDD contract to be finished in 2009, including tests at Lakehurst. By that time, Dave-B will have been flying for only a year. Choose your risk.
Suspect its because EMALS is outwith the scope of any UK-US MoU. That tends to be a frequent emb8ggerance. Otherwise it really is conspiracy theorists to the fore with an unholy alliance between USMC, UK MoD and Rolls Royce......
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theory about DLT is an interesting one considering the QinetiQ boffins on the VAAC have sorted out a system whereby you push a button and the jet lands itself. Not a lot of practice required for that IMHO, although I'm sure they'll teah the aircrew how to do 'the old fashioned way' just in case.
N-a-B...
Dave-B is wobbly. One attempt to get it into the USAF in STOL guise has failed, and the big-deck Navy has been fulminating at the idea of mixing B, C and Super H on the carriers. The Marines are speaking in defense of B and trying to fight the Navy's attempt to get them to buy more Cs. The UK can't be permitted to bail on STOVL at this point, because it sets off a cascade effect in which the Gyrenes are the only significant customer and the B's price tag goes exoatmospheric.
But at the same time, the CVFs are sunk if STOVL goes away. Seaphoon or Super Hornet are no longer options, because - under financial pressure - CVF has been sold as low-risk. How do you now go to Treasury and say "We just found out STOVL doesn't work - we're switching to cat-arrest and an entirely new air wing?" Treasury will pull the plug in a femtosecond.
Dave-B is wobbly. One attempt to get it into the USAF in STOL guise has failed, and the big-deck Navy has been fulminating at the idea of mixing B, C and Super H on the carriers. The Marines are speaking in defense of B and trying to fight the Navy's attempt to get them to buy more Cs. The UK can't be permitted to bail on STOVL at this point, because it sets off a cascade effect in which the Gyrenes are the only significant customer and the B's price tag goes exoatmospheric.
But at the same time, the CVFs are sunk if STOVL goes away. Seaphoon or Super Hornet are no longer options, because - under financial pressure - CVF has been sold as low-risk. How do you now go to Treasury and say "We just found out STOVL doesn't work - we're switching to cat-arrest and an entirely new air wing?" Treasury will pull the plug in a femtosecond.
Last edited by LowObservable; 18th May 2007 at 20:15.
Thread Starter
WhiteOvies
The theory about DLT is an interesting one considering the QinetiQ boffins on the VAAC have sorted out a system whereby you push a button and the jet lands itself. Not a lot of practice required for that IMHO...
Thought that was STOVL only?
junglyAEO
As to launch as recovery of UAVs, without the sloppy link between the cyclic and the collective, the whole aircraft can smaller and lighter for an equivalent performance, so almost anything is possible, a bit like Scan Eagle's wire catching routine and simple caly pigeon launcher.
Surely once you build a UAV that can carry a radar, computers, IFF, navigation equipment and datalinks it has a mass of a couple of tonnes at least? Which brings us back to the launch and recovery issue.
Occasional Aviator
If I had to choose between Merlin and Chinook, I'd go for Merlin. Why? It is actually faster than Chinook, goes about as high (16700ft design limit IIRC) and will stay up for longer on internal fuel - yes you can put a bob tank in the CH47, but you can put one in Merlin as well and anyway it takes up cabin space. The cabin in the Mk 3 is 2/3 the size of CH47, so big enough to take a palletised mission system, and the nightmares in producing a marinised aircraft which folds have all been overcome. Also the clever anti-vibration thingie would reduce fatigue on both the crew and the delicate avionics - the effect of this on endurance and system life shouldn't be underestimated.
You learn something every day. But is a palletised system really that desirable? Surely a fixed installation would be better from a system integration viewpoint, with regards to things like power supplies, EMC, thermal management etc. The vibration issue may be critical with the microwave tubes etc.
Surely a Merlin solution would also have the advantage of commonality with the Merlin HM1?
However, the most immediate issue when will construction start? According to the RN Presentation Team, the shipyards are ready to cut steel within hours of the paperwork being signed.
The theory about DLT is an interesting one considering the QinetiQ boffins on the VAAC have sorted out a system whereby you push a button and the jet lands itself. Not a lot of practice required for that IMHO...
Thought that was STOVL only?
junglyAEO
As to launch as recovery of UAVs, without the sloppy link between the cyclic and the collective, the whole aircraft can smaller and lighter for an equivalent performance, so almost anything is possible, a bit like Scan Eagle's wire catching routine and simple caly pigeon launcher.
Surely once you build a UAV that can carry a radar, computers, IFF, navigation equipment and datalinks it has a mass of a couple of tonnes at least? Which brings us back to the launch and recovery issue.
Occasional Aviator
If I had to choose between Merlin and Chinook, I'd go for Merlin. Why? It is actually faster than Chinook, goes about as high (16700ft design limit IIRC) and will stay up for longer on internal fuel - yes you can put a bob tank in the CH47, but you can put one in Merlin as well and anyway it takes up cabin space. The cabin in the Mk 3 is 2/3 the size of CH47, so big enough to take a palletised mission system, and the nightmares in producing a marinised aircraft which folds have all been overcome. Also the clever anti-vibration thingie would reduce fatigue on both the crew and the delicate avionics - the effect of this on endurance and system life shouldn't be underestimated.
You learn something every day. But is a palletised system really that desirable? Surely a fixed installation would be better from a system integration viewpoint, with regards to things like power supplies, EMC, thermal management etc. The vibration issue may be critical with the microwave tubes etc.
Surely a Merlin solution would also have the advantage of commonality with the Merlin HM1?
However, the most immediate issue when will construction start? According to the RN Presentation Team, the shipyards are ready to cut steel within hours of the paperwork being signed.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Remember we are talking about a ship based platform. Chinooks are just too big to be practical, they take up too much hangar space even on a 65kton ship. Merlin it will be.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Sorry, got confused,
DLT on trap is the issue and the fact that STOVL landing can now be done at the push of a button is another string to Dave B's bow. They're now working on deck short rolling landing to increase bring back. VAAC activities are coverered in one of the aviation mags this month.
Sorry, got confused,
DLT on trap is the issue and the fact that STOVL landing can now be done at the push of a button is another string to Dave B's bow. They're now working on deck short rolling landing to increase bring back. VAAC activities are coverered in one of the aviation mags this month.
Agree, Mr Boffin. Also, let's avoid the PR speak of "increasing bring back" and tell it the way it is, which is "an attempt to meet the bring back KPP/KUR that was supposed to have been met by the 2001 design, and again in 2004".
Thread Starter
Today is 25 years on from the main landings in the Falklands. High sortie rates were achieved from Hermes and Invincible. A number of frigates and destroyers escorting the landing force were attacked by Argentine aircraft, with Ardent being lost, and a number of ships damaged with two men killed in Argonaut and damage and injuries in other ships.
Fifeteen Argentine aircraft were downed, some by the guns and missiles of the ships in San Carlos Water, others by Sea Harriers. Without the carriers the landings could not have taken place.
Those who forget history..........
In far more recent news, HMS Ocean has recently siezed a large quantity of cocaine in the Carribean as described on the MOD website.
Having detected a small aircraft flying over the sea, the ship despatched one of its Sea King aircraft fitted with state of the art surveillance radar to investigate. The helicopter, from 854 Naval Air Squadron based in Culdrose, Cornwall, tracked the aircraft and called in the support of a Merlin aircraft from the ship together with a US Customs and Border Protection aircraft.
When the plans to axe the Sea Jet prematurely were announced, I assumed that 849 (as they were until December) would be the next for the chop. I failed to realise what a capable and versatile asset the Sea King ASaCs Sea King was/is, as has been proved by subsequent events. MASC should be even better.
Fifeteen Argentine aircraft were downed, some by the guns and missiles of the ships in San Carlos Water, others by Sea Harriers. Without the carriers the landings could not have taken place.
Those who forget history..........
In far more recent news, HMS Ocean has recently siezed a large quantity of cocaine in the Carribean as described on the MOD website.
Having detected a small aircraft flying over the sea, the ship despatched one of its Sea King aircraft fitted with state of the art surveillance radar to investigate. The helicopter, from 854 Naval Air Squadron based in Culdrose, Cornwall, tracked the aircraft and called in the support of a Merlin aircraft from the ship together with a US Customs and Border Protection aircraft.
When the plans to axe the Sea Jet prematurely were announced, I assumed that 849 (as they were until December) would be the next for the chop. I failed to realise what a capable and versatile asset the Sea King ASaCs Sea King was/is, as has been proved by subsequent events. MASC should be even better.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...70523-0004.htm
The latest (and hopefully last) from the Dear Leader on why Her Maj's RN is so well funded / equipped. Can't even get his spinners to write a technically, logically or grammatically correct answer to a simple question.....
The latest (and hopefully last) from the Dear Leader on why Her Maj's RN is so well funded / equipped. Can't even get his spinners to write a technically, logically or grammatically correct answer to a simple question.....
Thread Starter
The hon. Gentleman asks why the situation is different as between July 2004 and 1998. It is true that in 1998 we said that there should be 32 such frigates and destroyers, and in 2004 we reduced that number to 25, but we then increased the number or the capability of the alternative vessels.
What does that mean in English? So much for "Education, Education, Education".
What does that mean in English? So much for "Education, Education, Education".
Oh dear Listy.........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...carriers29.xml
Remind me again why MinDP is allegedly so well thought of? He's just making it up as he goes along.....
Remind me again why MinDP is allegedly so well thought of? He's just making it up as he goes along.....
"delivery of the Navy's carriers, due in 2012 and 2015."
And they're coming to take me away, Ha Ha/Hee Hee Ha Ha to the funny farm...
What's going on here, I wonder? Is it that the Treasury and the PM-designate are demanding that the MoD seriously assess what looks (on the face of it) like a money-saving option before they sign a contract? If so, they are doing it regardless of the impact on schedule, which is already tenuous. Or is there time available, as it becomes superabundantly clear that Dave-B is not going to be meeting KURs with FOC software before 2015 anyway?
And they're coming to take me away, Ha Ha/Hee Hee Ha Ha to the funny farm...
What's going on here, I wonder? Is it that the Treasury and the PM-designate are demanding that the MoD seriously assess what looks (on the face of it) like a money-saving option before they sign a contract? If so, they are doing it regardless of the impact on schedule, which is already tenuous. Or is there time available, as it becomes superabundantly clear that Dave-B is not going to be meeting KURs with FOC software before 2015 anyway?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Adminisphere: FL Nosebleed
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Francophobia
I wonder why our illustrious defence contractors are unhappy about working with French shipyards.
Could it be that a French yard build the Queen Mary II on time and under budget? OK, so Carnival Corporation had a good Project Manager in their Chief Naval Architect (we did ask him if he could build CVF for us - he declined).
I suspect a prolonged bunfight and more increase(s) in costs. Deep joy.
MOh
Could it be that a French yard build the Queen Mary II on time and under budget? OK, so Carnival Corporation had a good Project Manager in their Chief Naval Architect (we did ask him if he could build CVF for us - he declined).
I suspect a prolonged bunfight and more increase(s) in costs. Deep joy.
MOh
MOh
I suspect it's more to do with dicking about with the programme at this late stage, particularly when you've just spent a year putting together a JV (under threat from MinDP) based on certain workload assumptions.
The french yard you are assuming (although it could be DCN instead) built nothing for over two years after QM2 and is now owned by Aker (which is a good thing in efficiency terms). Stephen is far too sensible to get involved with an organisation (DPA) that struggles to know what it is doing.
I do not dispute that we are currently paying way over the odds for the ships and that is directly down to the inability of PFG (despite their best efforts) to provide good technical cost estimates on an activity basis and use them to batter both corporate BAES and the Clyde SB lobby. Nevertheless, as you say, any more delay will inevitably escalate cost.
I suspect it's more to do with dicking about with the programme at this late stage, particularly when you've just spent a year putting together a JV (under threat from MinDP) based on certain workload assumptions.
The french yard you are assuming (although it could be DCN instead) built nothing for over two years after QM2 and is now owned by Aker (which is a good thing in efficiency terms). Stephen is far too sensible to get involved with an organisation (DPA) that struggles to know what it is doing.
I do not dispute that we are currently paying way over the odds for the ships and that is directly down to the inability of PFG (despite their best efforts) to provide good technical cost estimates on an activity basis and use them to batter both corporate BAES and the Clyde SB lobby. Nevertheless, as you say, any more delay will inevitably escalate cost.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Back in the UK from the Sunshine Island for the last 8 years.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers,numbers,shipyards.
Clicking on the link below should perhaps bring home the need not only for the 2 carriers but for a return to a realistic number of required hulls afloat and manned (excuse PC incorrect phraseology, but I am old-fashioned!) sooner rather than later.
Looking at their shipyards' capabilities perhaps we should also ask for a quote from them to build some of our vessels!
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm
Sic transit gloria!
Looking at their shipyards' capabilities perhaps we should also ask for a quote from them to build some of our vessels!
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm
Sic transit gloria!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Adminisphere: FL Nosebleed
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ie we need to retain a balanced capable fleet able to cope with tomorrow's threat as well as today's.
Back in the dim and distant past I worked on what sort of kit we'd need in the future (20+ years). The Cold War seemed to be over (gives you an idea of when), and we reckoned the most concerning and testing part of the world would be South East Asia. I think we were right ....
MOh
Back in the dim and distant past I worked on what sort of kit we'd need in the future (20+ years). The Cold War seemed to be over (gives you an idea of when), and we reckoned the most concerning and testing part of the world would be South East Asia. I think we were right ....
MOh
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And in the meantime, the US have just awarded the production contract for the first LHA-R.
DID:
The USA's New LHA-R Ship Class: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.
Designed to project power and maintain presence, this LHA-R large deck amphibious assault ships (also known as LH-X) will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They're based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but are almost 80 feet longer, 10 feet wider, and weigh in at 50,000t fully loaded rather than 42,000t; this is larger than France's nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the 45,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle. Aviation and communications capabilities in particular will be enhanced....
In addition to its complement of Marines in their new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles et. al., LHA-R ships will also support amphibious operations with a mix of MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors; CH-53E/K heavy transport, MH-60R/S multi-role utility, and AH-1W/Z attack helicopters; plus 8-20 fixed wing F-35B Lightning II STOVL aircraft, depending on the chosen force mix for the mission. The current ranges under discussion would give the LHA-R a balanced carrying capability for about 30-35 aircraft, or less if more MV-22s or CH-53s are chosen. The lead LHA-R is planned for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2013.....
DID:
The USA's New LHA-R Ship Class: Carrier Air + Amphibious Assault
Modern U.S. Navy Amphibious Assault Ships project power and maintain presence by serving as the cornerstone of the Amphibious Readiness Group (ARG) / Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). A key element of the Seapower 21 doctrine pillars of Sea Strike and Sea Basing, these ships transport, launch, and land elements of the Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) via a combination of LCAC hovercraft, amphibious transports and vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.
Designed to project power and maintain presence, this LHA-R large deck amphibious assault ships (also known as LH-X) will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They're based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but are almost 80 feet longer, 10 feet wider, and weigh in at 50,000t fully loaded rather than 42,000t; this is larger than France's nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the 45,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle. Aviation and communications capabilities in particular will be enhanced....
In addition to its complement of Marines in their new Expeditionary Fighting Vehicles et. al., LHA-R ships will also support amphibious operations with a mix of MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotors; CH-53E/K heavy transport, MH-60R/S multi-role utility, and AH-1W/Z attack helicopters; plus 8-20 fixed wing F-35B Lightning II STOVL aircraft, depending on the chosen force mix for the mission. The current ranges under discussion would give the LHA-R a balanced carrying capability for about 30-35 aircraft, or less if more MV-22s or CH-53s are chosen. The lead LHA-R is planned for delivery to the U.S. Navy in 2013.....