BAe wins CVF
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
"In order to utilise the full operational potential of the CVF/STOVL JSF weapons system capability, Thales has adopted a novel extended centre line runway option, that will be used on occasions when it is necessary for JSF to carry increased payloads. The twin island design provides greatly enhanced operational survivability by physical separation of key ship and flying control functions. Additionally, air flow studies show that this island configuration improves the ‘air wake’ environment for approaching aircraft.
Thales’ CVF design takes full advantage of integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP). The adoption of an IFEP system allows the ship’s electrical generators to be dispersed throughout the vessel giving improved survivability. This design feature, along with podded drive propulsion, similar to that being used on the cruise liner Queen Mary 2, eliminates long shaft-lines. Furthermore, podded propulsion also improves hydrodynamic efficiency and manoeuvrability in confined waters and berthing".
---------------------------------------------------
Podded drive propulsion:
The main principle of this new podded propulsion system is a powerful electric motor, which directly drives the propeller, installed in a streamlined pod under the ship. Up to 360 degrees of freedom around the vertical axis of rotation ensures an optimum level of manoeuvrability.
Thales’ CVF design takes full advantage of integrated full electric propulsion (IFEP). The adoption of an IFEP system allows the ship’s electrical generators to be dispersed throughout the vessel giving improved survivability. This design feature, along with podded drive propulsion, similar to that being used on the cruise liner Queen Mary 2, eliminates long shaft-lines. Furthermore, podded propulsion also improves hydrodynamic efficiency and manoeuvrability in confined waters and berthing".
---------------------------------------------------
Podded drive propulsion:
The main principle of this new podded propulsion system is a powerful electric motor, which directly drives the propeller, installed in a streamlined pod under the ship. Up to 360 degrees of freedom around the vertical axis of rotation ensures an optimum level of manoeuvrability.
Its interesting that the government has given the contract to BAE, who quoted on their design, but the boat will actually be of a completey different design thought up by Thales, who have no experience of this type of project. Can anyone see the potential for muddled project management and cost over-runs? Will the MoD put their hands up in 10 years time to say that budget problems are their fault?
Congratulations to BAE on winning. Surely one sensible decision from Hoon.
Congratulations to BAE on winning. Surely one sensible decision from Hoon.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Darkest Hampshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody else got a feeling that this could all go horribly wrong? BAe Systems building boats? Do me a favour! Given their recent success in the a/c market (I shan't list them all) it would seem that they are now keen to pork up our Navy as well. Jolly good show. At least it'll keep 10.000 people in work...
Given that
a) They're crap
and
b) It's somebody else's design (who haven't really got much experience in this sort of thing),
does anyone want to enter a sweepstake on how late and how over budget it comes in at? (Winners or they're heirs will be informed of their success on delivery of the second boat)
I reckon 7 yrs and Ł2.5Bn.
PS. A French design? Nelson will be turning in his grave...
Given that
a) They're crap
and
b) It's somebody else's design (who haven't really got much experience in this sort of thing),
does anyone want to enter a sweepstake on how late and how over budget it comes in at? (Winners or they're heirs will be informed of their success on delivery of the second boat)
I reckon 7 yrs and Ł2.5Bn.
PS. A French design? Nelson will be turning in his grave...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a dumbo's point of view - confined waters would be ports and places like the Suez Canal where the currents thrown out by large props would be a bit of a pain? The spec given above makes no reference to speed so its difficult to tell what speed it could make.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's so relieving to hear the manner in which this procurement has been concluded - with more than a bit of the idiotic view voiced by ShutUp and Drive that "Nelson would be turning in his grave". The man only had one arm, so is this possible?
When was the last time we did battle with the French Navy, you muppet? If you really want a policy whereby you only buy British kit, have out politicians set the procurement strategy accordingly, and drop this pretence of 'smart procurment'. Fair enough, it's what everyone else does, but then don't complain when the end result is crap. I hope you're equally insulted that we're doing Meteor, A400M and Typhoon with the Germans, and then we had independence wars with the USA several centuries ago, so perhaps F-35 is also an affront?
And the ultimate joke: Hoon announced this by saying that BAE has a "proven capability" to manage programmes - not on Nimrod MRA4, not on Astute, not on Typhoon; need we continue?
We already have an HMS Quorn, so why not HMS Fudge for the first of class CVF?
And what does this mean for FSTA - perhaps they like the A330 but want BAE to prime on that too!
When was the last time we did battle with the French Navy, you muppet? If you really want a policy whereby you only buy British kit, have out politicians set the procurement strategy accordingly, and drop this pretence of 'smart procurment'. Fair enough, it's what everyone else does, but then don't complain when the end result is crap. I hope you're equally insulted that we're doing Meteor, A400M and Typhoon with the Germans, and then we had independence wars with the USA several centuries ago, so perhaps F-35 is also an affront?
And the ultimate joke: Hoon announced this by saying that BAE has a "proven capability" to manage programmes - not on Nimrod MRA4, not on Astute, not on Typhoon; need we continue?
We already have an HMS Quorn, so why not HMS Fudge for the first of class CVF?
And what does this mean for FSTA - perhaps they like the A330 but want BAE to prime on that too!
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Speed is 25+ knots.
Engines:
Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP)
4 x Fiat-General Electric LM2500+ gas turbines generator sets.
4 x Alstom electric induction motors (21.5MW each) in RR-Alstom "Mermaid"propulsion pods (two fixed, two azimuthing).
85MW total (approx. 114,000 shp).
Depending on the positioning of the pods, you can totally delete the requirement for a rudder.
Notes:
1. Quote "The latest transatlantic cruise ship Cunard's Queen Mary 2 will feature four even more powerful MERMAIDS, totalling 85MW", so it's an off-the shelf low-risk design.
2. The Millenium class cruise ships, fitted with only 2 pods, weigh 91,000 tons and have a cruise speed of 24 knots.
Engines:
Integrated Full Electric Propulsion (IFEP)
4 x Fiat-General Electric LM2500+ gas turbines generator sets.
4 x Alstom electric induction motors (21.5MW each) in RR-Alstom "Mermaid"propulsion pods (two fixed, two azimuthing).
85MW total (approx. 114,000 shp).
Depending on the positioning of the pods, you can totally delete the requirement for a rudder.
Notes:
1. Quote "The latest transatlantic cruise ship Cunard's Queen Mary 2 will feature four even more powerful MERMAIDS, totalling 85MW", so it's an off-the shelf low-risk design.
2. The Millenium class cruise ships, fitted with only 2 pods, weigh 91,000 tons and have a cruise speed of 24 knots.
Last edited by ORAC; 31st Jan 2003 at 16:58.
French Warships
On a slightly divergent note many of the RN's best warships during the Napoleonic wars were actually captured
French Men-o'war.
It just goes to show it isn't how good your kit is it is how you use it!
French Men-o'war.
It just goes to show it isn't how good your kit is it is how you use it!
SHUD, BAe own all our shipyards except for Vospers and Swan Hunters.....is your point that Govan, Barrow, Scotstoun etc shouldn't do "boats"? Who else did all the other ships in the navy since the year dot? And a 60,000 ton carrier is a SHIP! Also, if BAe and all the surviving British ship design teams are "crap", is that any better than "without experience"? After all Thales have built an aircraft carrier much more recently than we have! It is said that the RN preferred Thales' design. BTW, the Thales design team work in the heartland of Gaullist nationalism that is Bristol...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot imagine how Concorde, Airbus or Jaguar managed to stagger into the air.
Can someone make an informed guess as to how much bang per Million bucks we are buying? How much power will these things be able to project, in terms of offensive payload delivered per 24 hrs? Some of the figures I have heard bandied around are pathetic.
Pretty-looking boats, though, and I can foersee some superb drinks parties during foreign ship visits. And that's what its all really about, isn't it?
Can someone make an informed guess as to how much bang per Million bucks we are buying? How much power will these things be able to project, in terms of offensive payload delivered per 24 hrs? Some of the figures I have heard bandied around are pathetic.
Pretty-looking boats, though, and I can foersee some superb drinks parties during foreign ship visits. And that's what its all really about, isn't it?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"off-the shelf low-risk design"? - these 'pods' have not proved trouble free, and if you have a problem with the motor then its dry-dock time.
http://www.ebearing.com/news2002/032701.htm
http://www.ebearing.com/news2002/032701.htm
Last edited by Smoketoomuch; 31st Jan 2003 at 18:18.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Yes, low risk. The design is in service on commercial vessels and RR is being made to sort out the bearing problems, there's money and contracts involved! We don't take delivery for nearly 10 years, somehow I doubt it will take that long to resolve.
And a pod change won't be nearly as prolonged and troublesome as a shaft change, not counting that with even 2 out you should, by the figures, still be able to manage 24 knots!
And a pod change won't be nearly as prolonged and troublesome as a shaft change, not counting that with even 2 out you should, by the figures, still be able to manage 24 knots!
Three worries....
1. The use of commercial technology in warships is not necessarily a good thing. Once upon a time there was a ship called HMS Ocean under contruction. In an effort to keep costs down she was built to civillan and not naval standards. Personally I consider this somewhat worrying for a fighting ship, and hope that this doesn't become routine practice. Anyway, Ocean was given diesel engines and merchant ship like propulsion to keep costs down. As was much reported in the local press here, she had real problems due to this, I personally have heard her building described as a complete cluster ****! The result of this propulsion problems is that she only has a top speed of 18 knots (when we sent forces to Sierra Leone the CVS (can't remember which one) had to wait several days for her to catch up!) Does this fit with the policy of rapid reaction forces? Additionally she has problems with electrical power.
2. I can't help thinking that the management of a project of this importance should be in the hands of the MOD/RN rather than a contractor who will be (to some extent) decoupled from the user.
3. Will any of it matter if the RN does not have sufficient pilots in the next decade. This has been a matter of concern for some time, and the premature loss of the Sea Harrier can only make it worse. *
* Said for the benefit of visiting journalists, opposition MPs and concerned citizens, rather than other PPRuNErs.
1. The use of commercial technology in warships is not necessarily a good thing. Once upon a time there was a ship called HMS Ocean under contruction. In an effort to keep costs down she was built to civillan and not naval standards. Personally I consider this somewhat worrying for a fighting ship, and hope that this doesn't become routine practice. Anyway, Ocean was given diesel engines and merchant ship like propulsion to keep costs down. As was much reported in the local press here, she had real problems due to this, I personally have heard her building described as a complete cluster ****! The result of this propulsion problems is that she only has a top speed of 18 knots (when we sent forces to Sierra Leone the CVS (can't remember which one) had to wait several days for her to catch up!) Does this fit with the policy of rapid reaction forces? Additionally she has problems with electrical power.
2. I can't help thinking that the management of a project of this importance should be in the hands of the MOD/RN rather than a contractor who will be (to some extent) decoupled from the user.
3. Will any of it matter if the RN does not have sufficient pilots in the next decade. This has been a matter of concern for some time, and the premature loss of the Sea Harrier can only make it worse. *
* Said for the benefit of visiting journalists, opposition MPs and concerned citizens, rather than other PPRuNErs.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe wins CV(F)
Not quite sure why everyone is dribbling on about 24 knot cruising speed and pods. Surely we should be asking, as these are supposedly 'adaptable' carriers, how they are going to reach and sustain speeds of 40+ knots to launch E2 and any conventional aircraft off the cat when there is ****** all true wind. Ask the Americans - no wind, make your own (45+knots) - how they build a carrier. F*$king loads (250,000shp) of power means you can get on to DFC just by opening the taps.
Lets just hope the government appoint a decent project director to oversee these new beasties - preferably someone with more sense than looked after some other famous BAe projects: Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, Eurofighter, Astute, Wave Class, Albion and Bulwark, Type 45 - there must be an Army project they have fu*&ed up as well.
Why wasn't Newport News a bidder - surely George and Tone could have struck a deal?
Lets just hope the government appoint a decent project director to oversee these new beasties - preferably someone with more sense than looked after some other famous BAe projects: Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, Eurofighter, Astute, Wave Class, Albion and Bulwark, Type 45 - there must be an Army project they have fu*&ed up as well.
Why wasn't Newport News a bidder - surely George and Tone could have struck a deal?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guess now we can expect several senior retiring naval officers to take up jobs with BAE Systems. Who knows, they may be even better than the retired RAF types at creating cost overuns and even later deliveries.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cyrus
You don't really believe that BAES allows retired military chappies any involvement in decision making processes do you? That's part of the job satisfaction - no responsibility, frustration if you let it get to you, but oh the perks (less so now I hear).
You don't really believe that BAES allows retired military chappies any involvement in decision making processes do you? That's part of the job satisfaction - no responsibility, frustration if you let it get to you, but oh the perks (less so now I hear).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF
I know you disparage commercial technology. But I have not yet seen a reasonable explanation of why the CVSs should costten times as much as a cruise liner of comparable tonnage. After all, the CVSs do not have to have glitzy cabins and ballrooms, do they? We were told that they are just floating hangars, pointed at one end and with propulsion at the other.
I know you disparage commercial technology. But I have not yet seen a reasonable explanation of why the CVSs should costten times as much as a cruise liner of comparable tonnage. After all, the CVSs do not have to have glitzy cabins and ballrooms, do they? We were told that they are just floating hangars, pointed at one end and with propulsion at the other.
