Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, you guys are building 2 carriers that really aren't carriers.
even the French have a Nuclear powered carrier with catobar.
And the French have qualified their raphale on US carriers.
But the queen looked nice breaking a bottle of whiskey.
I just don't get it, either do things right or don't bother.
even the French have a Nuclear powered carrier with catobar.
And the French have qualified their raphale on US carriers.
But the queen looked nice breaking a bottle of whiskey.
I just don't get it, either do things right or don't bother.
It was Bowmore, thus whisky
An excellent maxim, but observed so rarely...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
archimedes
so I spelled raphael wrong
and whiskey instead of whisky
you guys invented the angled flight deck and a few other things.
really, what will this copter carrier on steroids do?
so I spelled raphael wrong
and whiskey instead of whisky
you guys invented the angled flight deck and a few other things.
really, what will this copter carrier on steroids do?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll do absolutely nothing. It's got another two years of fitting out and systems integration in the basin, followed by another two years of sea trials, followed by 18 months of work up and air wing integration.
By which time it won't be a 'copter carrier' at all.
By which time it won't be a 'copter carrier' at all.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rak,
I would also like to know what you think it will be.
It will be a helicopter platform but it might also be a F35 platform ?
I would also like to know what you think it will be.
It will be a helicopter platform but it might also be a F35 platform ?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500N, Honestly?
A better carrier than CVS.... In fact I'd add; as good as if not better carrier than CdeG and very likely a better carrier than Vikrant, Kuznetsov, Sao Paolo and Liaoning.
It it as good as a CVN? lol no.
As for what the air group will do? That'll depend on the politicians and the money. If the Dave by some unlikely possibility, never enters service, we could (and it'll likely be PoW only) convert it to EMALS and buy Super Bugs. Yes that will be expensive but the cost will be partly off set buy the saving from buying cheaper aircraft. We'd still only have a 70 a/c strong Bug fleet though and still never put more than a dozen to sea for routine deployments.
A better carrier than CVS.... In fact I'd add; as good as if not better carrier than CdeG and very likely a better carrier than Vikrant, Kuznetsov, Sao Paolo and Liaoning.
It it as good as a CVN? lol no.
As for what the air group will do? That'll depend on the politicians and the money. If the Dave by some unlikely possibility, never enters service, we could (and it'll likely be PoW only) convert it to EMALS and buy Super Bugs. Yes that will be expensive but the cost will be partly off set buy the saving from buying cheaper aircraft. We'd still only have a 70 a/c strong Bug fleet though and still never put more than a dozen to sea for routine deployments.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah a CVN is bigger and better but we get two conventional carriers for the price of one "Gerald Ford"
Given that there has been NO carrier -to-carrier battles in the last 69 years you can argue (and people even in the USA do) that a CVN is a very expensive, and very man-power heavy, way of putting lots of eggs in a small number of baskets
If the CVA's are properly equipped they can carry enough strike aircraft and helicopters for what we need
As we aren't planning to going head-to head with the PLA (N) the new UK carriers are a good (but expensive) fit for our purposes
Given that there has been NO carrier -to-carrier battles in the last 69 years you can argue (and people even in the USA do) that a CVN is a very expensive, and very man-power heavy, way of putting lots of eggs in a small number of baskets
If the CVA's are properly equipped they can carry enough strike aircraft and helicopters for what we need
As we aren't planning to going head-to head with the PLA (N) the new UK carriers are a good (but expensive) fit for our purposes
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
The US does not have carriers, of any sort just for carrier to carrier battles.
Doesn't it have carriers to allow it to project US foreign policy and military power anywhere in the world without the issues of basing armed aircraft in foreign countries close to where the US wants to operate.
Ie when 9/11 occurred, the captain of one US carrier group that was returning from the middle east to the US but turned it around and sailed full steam back - without permission - even out steaming the escort ships but by doing so was able to position the carrier off asia and gave the US military options that they would not have had otherwise. He was praised for his decision.
The last UK battle was the Falklands, not carrier to carrier but it could have been.
Kosovo ?
Sierra leone ?
The US does not have carriers, of any sort just for carrier to carrier battles.
Doesn't it have carriers to allow it to project US foreign policy and military power anywhere in the world without the issues of basing armed aircraft in foreign countries close to where the US wants to operate.
Ie when 9/11 occurred, the captain of one US carrier group that was returning from the middle east to the US but turned it around and sailed full steam back - without permission - even out steaming the escort ships but by doing so was able to position the carrier off asia and gave the US military options that they would not have had otherwise. He was praised for his decision.
The last UK battle was the Falklands, not carrier to carrier but it could have been.
Kosovo ?
Sierra leone ?
Last edited by 500N; 5th Jul 2014 at 08:26.
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
Yeah a CVN is bigger and better but we get two conventional carriers for the price of one "Gerald Ford"
HMS Queen Elizabeth plus HMS Prince of Wales: £6.2 bn (VAT inc) including circa £0.45 bn R&D for QE amortised over both platforms and £1.6 bn in politically-driven double U-turn and two-year deferment of completion aimed at achieving in-year savings.
USS Gerald R. Ford: £10.2 bn including £2.7 bn R&D which will be amortised over future CVNs of the same class.
However, in many ways we are comparing apples with oranges.
USS Gerald R. Ford: £10.2 bn including £2.7 bn R&D which will be amortised over future CVNs of the same class.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I thought the POW had agreed that the POW be renamed Ark Royal. Did I dream that?
I wonder how the separate bridge and flyco will work? Given Rossian's post on a different thread about the responsibilities of the Captain especially when things go pear shaped. Will he stay on the bridge or jump in a car and go to the flyco?
On an airfield the stn cdr is one of the first to form the brains trust in the tower rather than leave it to OC Ops.
I wonder how the separate bridge and flyco will work? Given Rossian's post on a different thread about the responsibilities of the Captain especially when things go pear shaped. Will he stay on the bridge or jump in a car and go to the flyco?
On an airfield the stn cdr is one of the first to form the brains trust in the tower rather than leave it to OC Ops.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,747 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
I was impressed with the Carrier we never built 
BBC News - The aircraft carrier that never was
I do like the comments on the RAF redrawing the world to show how they could project Airpower, and the final words from the designer... Some things never change.
BBC News - The aircraft carrier that never was
I do like the comments on the RAF redrawing the world to show how they could project Airpower, and the final words from the designer... Some things never change.
To this day, the battle over CVA-01 still scars many who served in the navy. And many navy veterans still believe the RAF cheated in making its arguments in the 1960s that its land-based aircraft could do the job of the carriers, by producing maps that showed Singapore 400 miles closer to Australia than it really is.
I interviewed the last chief designer of CVA-01, Louis Rydill, just before he died, and he confirmed that he had said that the day the project was cancelled was the happiest of his life. However, that was not because he did not believe in the carrier case. It was because he felt that he had been forced to make so many compromises, and introduce so many risky design elements, because of size and budget restrictions, that the whole project had become a nightmare.
I interviewed the last chief designer of CVA-01, Louis Rydill, just before he died, and he confirmed that he had said that the day the project was cancelled was the happiest of his life. However, that was not because he did not believe in the carrier case. It was because he felt that he had been forced to make so many compromises, and introduce so many risky design elements, because of size and budget restrictions, that the whole project had become a nightmare.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
harry, you aren't getting two conventional carriers, you are getting two STOVL carriers. In fact a Nimitz class or Ford class can carry twice as many planes as one of your QE class. So its not really two for one.
They will need to be followed by fleet oilers.
500N. You are writing about the Enterprise carrier group. Other naval assets on their own went out to the area near New York and Washington on command of senior officer present afloat until things were more well understood.
Carriers can also do amazing humanitarian things like help out coastal towns with fresh water and even electricity. USS Lexington, over 80 years ago, pulled up to a town in Washington and plugged in to their grid providing power for over a month while repairs to generators ashore were done.
Might have been cheaper for UK to just bye a few MISTRAL class french ships. Maybe even picking up the ones the russians want to buy.
I think if you want to compare ships (back to the other poster) you might compare the amphibious assault ships , also capable of carrying F35 or currently carrying Harrier.
I'm sure the new carriers will be enjoyable enough for a cruise of the med.
They will need to be followed by fleet oilers.
500N. You are writing about the Enterprise carrier group. Other naval assets on their own went out to the area near New York and Washington on command of senior officer present afloat until things were more well understood.
Carriers can also do amazing humanitarian things like help out coastal towns with fresh water and even electricity. USS Lexington, over 80 years ago, pulled up to a town in Washington and plugged in to their grid providing power for over a month while repairs to generators ashore were done.
Might have been cheaper for UK to just bye a few MISTRAL class french ships. Maybe even picking up the ones the russians want to buy.
I think if you want to compare ships (back to the other poster) you might compare the amphibious assault ships , also capable of carrying F35 or currently carrying Harrier.
I'm sure the new carriers will be enjoyable enough for a cruise of the med.
Originally Posted by glendalegoon
harry, you aren't getting two conventional carriers, you are getting two STOVL carriers. In fact a Nimitz class or Ford class can carry twice as many planes as one of your QE class. So its not really two for one...
Originally Posted by Beedall's Navy Matters
Thales have built up specialist aviation teams, drawing on US, UK and French experience, to optimise the interface between the carrier and its air group. Sortie generation is the all-important metric: as firm and achievable figures became available the URD was changed by late 2002 from the original 1998 Staff Target (Sea) 7068 objective of 150 sorties per day with 50 aircraft, to a peak of 130 sorties per day with 48 aircraft (including up to 110 by JCA). Specifically, an early 2003 issue of the URD stated that the requirements for aircraft operations were:
In March 2005, the latest figures for JCA sortie generation from CVF were set at 108 launches in the first 24 hours, reducing to 72 per day for ten days and 36 for a further 20 days. A standard strike tailored air group was defined as including 30 JCAs (with up to 36 for short periods), with up to six anti-submarine Merlins and four maritime air surveillance and control (ASaC) aircraft
- Generate up to 510 JCA sorties over 5 days^
- Generate up to 110 JCA sorties in a 24 hour period^
- Launch 24 aircraft* in 15 minutes
- Recover 24 aircraft* in 24 minutes
- Simultaneous launch and recovery (4 launches/4 recoveries)
- Be able to de-conflict fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft
- Able to reconfigure designated spaces
- Be able to conduct night time operations
* Standard airgroup aircraft only, i.e. JCA, EH-101 Merlin and MASC.
........................................................In March 2005, the latest figures for JCA sortie generation from CVF were set at 108 launches in the first 24 hours, reducing to 72 per day for ten days and 36 for a further 20 days. A standard strike tailored air group was defined as including 30 JCAs (with up to 36 for short periods), with up to six anti-submarine Merlins and four maritime air surveillance and control (ASaC) aircraft
Central to the prime objective of achieving maximum sustained sortie levels is the issue of aircraft handling and movement. The complex process of aircraft handling, movement, preparation, launch and recovery has been the subject of extensive analysis and modelling, bearing in mind that CVF should be able to simultaneously launch and recover aircraft, concurrent with fixed- and rotary-wing operations. In turn, these analyses of aircraft cycling have influenced flight deck operating and parking areas, island footprint, hangar layout, aircraft and weapon lifts, and site of support services. BAE Systems and Thales have both developed sortie-generation models respectively known as SURGE and SAILOR. Additionally the DPA has its own model known as CAPSTAN, later CAPSTAN2...
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: glendale
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buddy refuelers? Doing things like that is a precaution. Just like plane guard destroyers or copters ready to pluck pilots from the sea. You can certainly land planes without buddy refuelers.
Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?
Sorry. The QE will be a nice little carrier for a few stovl planes and copters. But by no means would it be a fleet carrier in anyone's book.
Just seems a shame for the country that invented the angled flight deck and steam catapults should settle for a nice little boat.
Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?
Sorry. The QE will be a nice little carrier for a few stovl planes and copters. But by no means would it be a fleet carrier in anyone's book.
Just seems a shame for the country that invented the angled flight deck and steam catapults should settle for a nice little boat.
Will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility approaches and landings?
Sorry. The QE will be a nice little carrier for a few stovl planes and copters. But by no means would it be a fleet carrier in anyone's book.
Just seems a shame for the country that invented the angled flight deck and steam catapults should settle for a nice little boat.
Sorry. The QE will be a nice little carrier for a few stovl planes and copters. But by no means would it be a fleet carrier in anyone's book.
Just seems a shame for the country that invented the angled flight deck and steam catapults should settle for a nice little boat.
As for a 'nice little carrier' you forget that the QE class was designed to have an angled deck and catapults, if the politicians were willing to pay for them (IIRC the original plan back in the late 90s was to consider them as a mid-life update). the fact they have a STOVL set up is a political one.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glendalegoon,
I might be able to help here.
To your second question: will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility landings and approaches?
Answer: Yes.
Next?
Best regards as ever to those who will regenerate UK maritime aviation, whatever their cloth and whatever their experience,
Engines
I might be able to help here.
To your second question: will vertical landing planes be able to make low visibility landings and approaches?
Answer: Yes.
Next?
Best regards as ever to those who will regenerate UK maritime aviation, whatever their cloth and whatever their experience,
Engines