Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: pomme....pomme !
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My dear Brits, to be sure to get your 2 carriers, you need to order the RAFALE.
this situation will avoid your Mod to axes the ships program.
If you stay with the F-35 you neither have the carriers and the planes.
this situation will avoid your Mod to axes the ships program.
If you stay with the F-35 you neither have the carriers and the planes.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir Percy,
I know its not you making that argument, but its an argument that can be made for almost every high value equipment program, for example:
I know its not you making that argument, but its an argument that can be made for almost every high value equipment program, for example:
- When was the last time the RAF needed to defend UK airspace?
- When was the last time we deployed an armoured division in defence of UK national interests?
- When was the last time a Vanguard SSBN was used in anger?
Or more importantly when was the last war we had planned, trained or equipped to fight?
we have to fight the war that happens rather than the one we want to fight therefore we need a rounded and balanced armed forces not the mess we have at the minite.
we need to have the flexibility to launch an armoured force or a light force anywhere in the world with adaquate support and capable of looking after itself.
Thread Starter
Captain Brown's book repeatedly reminds the reader that there is a very close relationship between a carrier and the aircraft she carries, much the same as there is between any other warship and her weapons and sensors.
I prefer to leave discussions on the mechanics of flight deck operations to those who have experience of such things, as I have more questions than answers. Will F35B have folding wings, for example?
It would appear that the CVF page on the Naval Technology website has been updated since this thread was started. This may give you something to comment on....
I prefer to leave discussions on the mechanics of flight deck operations to those who have experience of such things, as I have more questions than answers. Will F35B have folding wings, for example?
It would appear that the CVF page on the Naval Technology website has been updated since this thread was started. This may give you something to comment on....
We fiddle while China cracks on....
Don't know how many people are aware of this, but our Chinese friends have only gone and built a replica Nimitz in less time than the CVF took for assessment phase. This ain't the Varyag, (or Minsk or Kiev for that matter), but a 2/3 scale (from the looks of it) version of a CVN - scroll to the bottom of the link to see the ship.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...na/cv-pics.htm
There's no way it will be anything like an operational ship (more like a film mock-up), but FFS, at least they got on with it! Maybe we should have appointed Ocean Green boat as the integrator rather than KBR........
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...na/cv-pics.htm
There's no way it will be anything like an operational ship (more like a film mock-up), but FFS, at least they got on with it! Maybe we should have appointed Ocean Green boat as the integrator rather than KBR........
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 3rd Jan 2007 at 10:25.
It would appear that the CVF page on the Naval Technology website
"A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations."
Hmmm..... sounds about right.
No folding wings on F-35B, and never have been even in the early JSF days. Weight, as usual, is the issue. The C will have wing folds.
Interesting that the CVF is unarmoured while CVN-21 will be better protected than any of the Nimitz class. The Navy talks little about that aspect of the carriers' design but I suspect that it has been improved as the class has evolved.
Interesting that the CVF is unarmoured while CVN-21 will be better protected than any of the Nimitz class. The Navy talks little about that aspect of the carriers' design but I suspect that it has been improved as the class has evolved.
Thread Starter
That Naval Technology page is interesting.
The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period.
The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.
How do these figures compare with a USN Carrier, or our old conventional carriers? How does the sortie rate (per aircraft) compare with that achieved by Hermes and Invincible in 1982?
The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m for the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft. The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship.
A question I have following on from the above comments regarding CVA 01 is have the needs of maintainers been taken into account? Not just in the hangar, but also on deck? Is there anywhere where aircraft can be tested and ground runs performed without unduly disrupting normal deck operations?
The carrier will support 42 Joint Combat Aircraft carrying out up to 420 sorties over five days and be able to conduct day and night time operations. The maximum sortie rate is 110 Joint Combat Aircraft sorties per 24-hour period.
The maximum launch rate is 24 aircraft in 15 minutes and the maximum recovery rate is 24 aircraft in 24 minutes.
How do these figures compare with a USN Carrier, or our old conventional carriers? How does the sortie rate (per aircraft) compare with that achieved by Hermes and Invincible in 1982?
The deck has three runways: two shorter runways of approximately 160m for the STOVL Joint Strike Fighter and a long runway, approximately 260m over the full length of the carrier, for launching heavily loaded aircraft. The deck will have one or two vertical landing pads for the F-35 aircraft towards the stern of the ship.
A question I have following on from the above comments regarding CVA 01 is have the needs of maintainers been taken into account? Not just in the hangar, but also on deck? Is there anywhere where aircraft can be tested and ground runs performed without unduly disrupting normal deck operations?
The launch / recovery rates are comparable to a CVN, depending on the sea state / vis available for recovery and the number of cats used. The big difference between CVF and what we've done before is the size of the biggest strike package. Can't be compared with Hermes & Invincible, because the launch / recoveries just weren't comparable in size - think back to Brian Hanrahan counting them all out and back in again, that was only 12.
AFAIK, the provision for ground running etc has been included in CVF and made much easier by having plenty of room on the stbd side - can't really compare with CVS because the limitations in deck layout (length of island, impact of lift on runway, parking at Fly2) all push the ground running back to the prime parking areas back aft.
The NT page is interesting, but some of it is out fo date and some plain inaccurate.
AFAIK, the provision for ground running etc has been included in CVF and made much easier by having plenty of room on the stbd side - can't really compare with CVS because the limitations in deck layout (length of island, impact of lift on runway, parking at Fly2) all push the ground running back to the prime parking areas back aft.
The NT page is interesting, but some of it is out fo date and some plain inaccurate.
Suspicion breeds confidence
To be fair, Hermes was operating at over capacity in the Falklands campaign. Her 1966 capability was:
12 X Sea Vixen
6 X Buccaneer
3 X Gannet AEW
Up to 6 X Helo
In the Falklands she had
12 X Sea Harrier
9 X Pingers
9 X Junglies
Eventually she has a total of 18 Shar/GR3s embarked in addition to helos. Not bad for a 27,000 ton CV.
12 X Sea Vixen
6 X Buccaneer
3 X Gannet AEW
Up to 6 X Helo
In the Falklands she had
12 X Sea Harrier
9 X Pingers
9 X Junglies
Eventually she has a total of 18 Shar/GR3s embarked in addition to helos. Not bad for a 27,000 ton CV.
Indeed, not bad at all, but she never tried to launch or recover them all in the one strike package (not that running ripples, CAPs and CAS missions concurrently isn't demanding).
I do remember watching from Stromness' flightdeck as she launched the airgroup for Devon / Cornwall , the day after she got back in July 82.
I do remember watching from Stromness' flightdeck as she launched the airgroup for Devon / Cornwall , the day after she got back in July 82.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 5th Jan 2007 at 11:21.
Thread Starter
From the Sunday Mail: YARDS TOLD NAVY CUTS WILL NOT SINK DEALS
But a senior defence source said last night: "The carriers are the future of the Royal Navy. Everything revolves around them. The contracts will be signed in the very near future."
Back to the Naval Technology CVF page:
The MASC airborne early warning aircraft will succeed the Sea King ASaC Mk 7 helicopter. The MASC assessment phase was launched in September 2005. In May 2006, three study contracts were awarded for MASC platform and mission systems options. The contracts were awarded to: Lockheed Martin UK to study the potential of using the Merlin with AEW mission systems, AgustaWestland to study maintaining the Sea King ASaC Mk 7 to 2017 and Thales UK to study upgrading the Sea King's mission systems. The studies are to be completed by the end of 2007.
In July 2006, two further study contracts for the enhanced manned rotary-wing solution were awarded to EADS Defence & Security Systems UK and Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems.
But a senior defence source said last night: "The carriers are the future of the Royal Navy. Everything revolves around them. The contracts will be signed in the very near future."
Back to the Naval Technology CVF page:
The MASC airborne early warning aircraft will succeed the Sea King ASaC Mk 7 helicopter. The MASC assessment phase was launched in September 2005. In May 2006, three study contracts were awarded for MASC platform and mission systems options. The contracts were awarded to: Lockheed Martin UK to study the potential of using the Merlin with AEW mission systems, AgustaWestland to study maintaining the Sea King ASaC Mk 7 to 2017 and Thales UK to study upgrading the Sea King's mission systems. The studies are to be completed by the end of 2007.
In July 2006, two further study contracts for the enhanced manned rotary-wing solution were awarded to EADS Defence & Security Systems UK and Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems.
Thread Starter
What is this "Advanced manned rotary wing solution" they speak off?
Going back to the flight deck issue - I seem to recall that when Ark Royal first went to the Adriatic in early 1993, she carried ASW, AEW and Jungly Sea Kings as well as a reinforced SHAR squadron. That must have caused problems.
Whenever you see a picture of a US Carrier, she will have what appears to be most of her air group on deck. Do they still keep that number of aircraft on deck during operations? Is hangar space more of an issue than deck space?
Going back to the flight deck issue - I seem to recall that when Ark Royal first went to the Adriatic in early 1993, she carried ASW, AEW and Jungly Sea Kings as well as a reinforced SHAR squadron. That must have caused problems.
Whenever you see a picture of a US Carrier, she will have what appears to be most of her air group on deck. Do they still keep that number of aircraft on deck during operations? Is hangar space more of an issue than deck space?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the disparity in the old days (when the RN had CTOL carriers) between RN and USN aircraft compliment numbers arose because the RN only counted the aircraft it could stow away in the armoured hangers, whereas the USN counted everything in the hangar plus the deck park?
I've often wondered why the Vinnys didn't get a deck overhang so that a squadron of SHARs could be stowed on deck whilst leaving the runway clear?
Something like this:
I've often wondered why the Vinnys didn't get a deck overhang so that a squadron of SHARs could be stowed on deck whilst leaving the runway clear?
Something like this:
Partly true SAN. Traditionally UK a/c numbers were what the ship could hangar. The US regard their flightdeck as the operating part of the ship, while the hangar is for repair and second line maintenance. The current US CVN are actually operating at something like 80% capacity in terms of a/c carriage (they used to have a CAG with ~96 a/c in the good old days of STRKFLTLANT). In some ways this actually helps them generate more sorties, partly because there is more room on the deck which reduces the need to respot after a recovery and partly because the plastic bugs are easier to service than their predecessors. They are beginning to feel the effects of retiring the KA6 and the S3 though - can't get enough fuel airborne for longer range missions.
As far as sponsons go on CVS, there are two good reasons they've never been done. Firstly, too expensive and would limit current dock access (although that will happen with CVF), but secondly because the ship would capsize.
As far as sponsons go on CVS, there are two good reasons they've never been done. Firstly, too expensive and would limit current dock access (although that will happen with CVF), but secondly because the ship would capsize.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffo,
Thanks for the reply- I'd always wondered why the RN hadn't adopted what seemed an obvious solution to carrying more aircraft! Is this a function of their draft? Just noting that other small carriers such as Brazils Minas Gerias seemed to sport extensive sponsons later in her career- and she was much the same size as a Vinny?
Thanks for the reply- I'd always wondered why the RN hadn't adopted what seemed an obvious solution to carrying more aircraft! Is this a function of their draft? Just noting that other small carriers such as Brazils Minas Gerias seemed to sport extensive sponsons later in her career- and she was much the same size as a Vinny?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: brizzle
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Older carriers
Boffo,
Thanks for the reply- I'd always wondered why the RN hadn't adopted what seemed an obvious solution to carrying more aircraft! Is this a function of their draft? Just noting that other small carriers such as Brazils Minas Gerias seemed to sport extensive sponsons later in her career- and she was much the same size as a Vinny?
Thanks for the reply- I'd always wondered why the RN hadn't adopted what seemed an obvious solution to carrying more aircraft! Is this a function of their draft? Just noting that other small carriers such as Brazils Minas Gerias seemed to sport extensive sponsons later in her career- and she was much the same size as a Vinny?
In the early CVS days it was always the intention to Hangar all aircraft when not on ops. But once they added AEW and the 6th, 7th and 8th SHAR and then GR it was not possible.
Sharmine.
Indeed as Sharmine says, steam-powered ships were a little easier to modify up top. Even so, the Vengeance sponsons shown are actually quite small and (at least to stbd) not rated for anything other than yellow gear. However, to fix the major problem with CVS (lack of easy parking/transit between in way of the island / runway, lifts) would have required a pretty major sponson to port. Interestingly, a colleague of mine refers to a noticeable change of list/heel on a CVS when a single SHAR was moved stabd to port....Just shows how sensitive they are.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 10th Jan 2007 at 13:27.