I keep hearing from one or two reliable sources that the F-35B decision is not done and dusted and the possibility of moving the the CV version is still on the table. Going CV would significantly raise the commonality between the UK and French ships and it should also be borne in mind that installing cats and traps is not going to get any cheaper. Yet another risk is that when EMCATS come on stream in the USN, the manufacture of steam cats will cease. If the DoD decides that it does not want to release this technology to its allies how do you launch your aircraft? The UK hasn't made a steam cat for 50 years. CV also brings the possibility of cooperating with the French on a joint Hawkeye purchase. Its no secret that the RN would like to have a proper AEW platform which can accompany a strike package - although UAVs may offer a solution here.

Surprised no one has picked this up:

KBR to lose aircraft carrier contract
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...04/cnkbr04.xml

Senior industry defence sources confirmed that KBR's role would come to an end some time in June.

"There is a consensus that KBR has not performed. They simply do not have the skills to be an integration partner," said one.

The news will be welcomed in particular by Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE Systems, Britain's largest defence contractor and a member of the alliance.

A spokesman for the MoD said: "KBR will continue to play a full part in the demonstration phase. Decisions on the manufacture phase have not yet been taken."

Industry executives still expect the project to get the final approval from the Government in the next few months although price remains a hurdle.

I don't think KBR had planned on staying in the ACA past the demonstration phase. They were brought in to help coordinate efforts while the likes of BWoS remembered how to build big ships again. Their long term future in this or any other MoD project was over put at risk by Halliburton deciding to float them against the wishes of the MoD who are afterall a major client.

I know that at least some of the KBR "integrator" personnel were in fact from DML, who while they are good blokes have next to no idea about building big surface ships. If used as an alternate to Big&Expensive orthodoxy, this was probably a good idea, but not entirely conducive to good company relations.....Whether DML / KBR survive as independents in the upcoming shenanigans over Subco is another story.

As Navaleye says, the CV option makes far more sense, but for MoD to change horses will require some form of upset in the Dave B programme to pin it on. Believe it or not, the CV designs for the UK ship included getting MacTaggart Scott to dust off the old BH6 steam cat and DA2 arresting engine designs as C13 info could not be easily sourced from the US. However, I suspect the bigger risk to a UK cat n trapper would be the in-service support of those type of systems.

The BH6 proved robust and reliable in service and could get an F-35 into the air, but I suspect making 4 cats from 50 year old blueprints in imperial measurements may not be all that easy in a CADCAM world. Hey if it works we could even go back to having bridles and bridle catchers just like the old days.

Agreed - just wanted to demonstrate where UK had got to, in terms of thinking through and following up the CV backup option. Have seen a C13 up close and personal and that's not entirely CADAM-compliant either! Personally, I think the access issue will go away if the UK decides on a CV ship - I suspect the IPT just did not wish to spend money on accessing the data prior to a decision (however daft that may seem). After all the folk across the channel got their very own version of C13 made specially for them. Whatever we get clearly must be nosetow compliant which obviously favours C13, although modifiying the running shuttle on the BH6 might not be vastly risky (famous last words given current UK basic engineering successes!)

Perhaps we should concentrate on getting the carriers past main gate and into the build process? They are intended to be adaptable, so if we decide to go CTOL later we can. And isn't the F35 variant the UK selects dictated by the wants and needs of the RAF, not just the RN?

Back to MASC, perhaps this news story from 857 NAS shows that there is something in having a platform that can operate from ships other than a carrier?

If we rule out the Osprey on cost and complexity grounds (and presumably ERICA as well), and dismiss the Hawkeye as it might be able to launch but cannot land without arrestor wires then perhaps we might consider looking at a STOL aircraft with a service ceiling above 10 000 ft (a number of sources suggest the BN Defender can do twice this), folding wings, a strengthened undercarriage, room for the radar, processing equipment, communication equipment and other gear, two or three Observers, plenty of power generation, etc..........

WEBF.

Every now and then, ie when you post, you remind me just how little you know about anything.

Reading voraciously is not a substitute for knowledge, now please stop.

Tourist,

Thats a perfectly reasonable question and one that as a taxpayer, not a pilot, I'd be interested in hearing an answer to. Now, presuming you are enjoying a career at taxpayers expense, perhaps you could consider giving us a little payback?

cheers

The payback you get is me doing my job!, not answering idiot questions!

except on wednesday afternoons........
............and maybe fridays

seriously, have you seen the size of an islander next to a bagger cab?
does anybody really think that landing Hawkeye has ever been the issue?

This would be quite an interesting thread if we could just winnow out the people who are speculating from a position of no first hand knowledge. The problem with an annonymous forum is that it is sometimes difficult to tell the expert from the plausible idiot.
I suppose I should thank WEBF for at least making that discrimination easy by being an implausible idiot:rolleyes:

Thank you very much.

Now I didn't actually say use the Islander or Defender (at least I don't think I did) but I did mention a STOL solution. I only mentioned the Defender as it (perhaps?) has a higher service ceiling than current rotary wing platforms.

As for the Hawkeye.......

The E-2C Hawkeye demonstrated its ability to launch from a ski-jump during the 1980s and thus the "new" Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye remained officially a viable choice for MASC...

From the MASC page on Richard Beedall's website.

I was amazed when I read this! Not much use if you can't recover it though.

Tourist,

I have gone, in two posts, from agreeing with you wholeheartedly to feeling that no matter your "knowledge" you have very little wisdom.

Now I have disagreed with WEBF for what seems like many years but has been in reality only a couple.

Now I know that he can be exasperating in his continual linking to this that and the other website (usually either RN, Navy News, the Torygraph or one other the name of which escapes me right now but I am think Nuttall or somesuch like it). However, even if I did not know a bit about him personally I would still say your resorting to a second personal "attack" in the space of two posts is unwarranted.

As has been said in many threads across this great World Wide Web, if you do not like how a thread is going you have two choices. If you are the site owner you can shut it down and ban all those involved (this option is not available to you) or you can leave.

Now this may mean we miss out on whatever you may have to say and having read some of your other submissions you occasionally have rose post amongst the rest of what you post. However, many more illustrious posters have left these electronic halls and although they are mourned briefly, life goes on.

Cheers

BHR

:) :) :)

The point is, that on this subject I wish to gain knowledge, being aware that I am lacking. It would be made easier by not having to disregard uninformed speculation as well as read between the lines of informed speculation.

but you are correct in that I was overly offensive.

sorry WEBF

Tourist,

If we were to remove all "uninformed speculation" a large part of this site and the Net as a whole would disappear!!! :) :) :)

So much so that you could run the WWW from ZX Spectrum (48K mind not the 16K variant!!!) :p :p :p :p

Anyways on with the WEBF link-posting show!!!:ok: :ok: :E :E :sad: :sad: :D :D

Cheers

BHR

Aviation week carries a story on the latest developments here

Navaleye,

Interesting reading. I think I prefer the sound of the French version better. Better get my phrase book out!

New CVF Team Leader announced in press this week. A Commodore, RN.

Good luck to him. A brave man whoever he his to take this on when Drayson is still hell-bent on recreating British Shipbuilders (Warship Division)......

Heard a little rumour that the announcement of the MARS DOBAP contract is also being held up awaiting a BAe/VT JV, which is a bit rich considering the first MARS ships (tankers) are unlikely to be built in a British yard...

DefenceNews.com: Executive Warns British Carriers May Be Canceled

The industry executive leading an alliance of British companies vying for a contract to build two 65,000-metric-ton aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy has urged a swift conclusion to negotiations, or the project may never happen. It was only a throwaway remark at the end of a conference, but Peter McIntosh, the senior executive who delivered it, emphasized the possible consequences of government and industry not quickly agreeing on a price to build the biggest warships ever planned for the Royal Navy.

McIntosh, giving an update on the program, told an audience Jan. 24 that if things aren’t hurried up, he is in danger of being part of a project that would go on record as the longest program “never to happen.”

He spoke at a closed forum here, where Britain’s leading maritime industry executives and Ministry of Defence officials were discussing the future shape of the fleet. Some of his remarks about the high-profile CVF carrier program have leaked out. McIntosh was on holiday last week and not available for comment.

The warning to get on with the project follows concerns recently voiced by Adm. Sir Alan West, former First Sea Lord, that some in government wanted to abandon the program and use the cash on other projects.

Lord Drayson, defense procurement minister, quashed that speculation Jan. 18 when answering questions in the House of Lords. An MoD spokesman said ministry officials are “redoubling our efforts to get the carrier deal closed. We are still trying to close the gap on the price.”

Nevertheless, industry and government officials continue to talk about opposition to the plans by sections of government, and McIntosh’s remarks add weight to suggestions the carriers might face a problem.....

Does anyone have a link to the recent select commitee report?
Going back very briefly to MASC, I wasn't speculating, merely suggesting. It was Jackonicko's recent thread on the Islander and Defender that put the idea in my head that a STOL carrier landing/take off would be possible. Also since the MASC choice has been portrayed as Merlin, Osprey or Hawkeye, then why not consider alternatives such as a helicopter with a greater altitude and cabin volume, or any fixed wing type that doesn't need cats and traps, if such a thing was possible?

Perhaps it is possible, if only on paper: Interesting Studies

Design requirements included a takeoff ground roll of 300 ft, a landing ground roll of 400 ft, cruise at 350 knots with a range of up to 1500 nm with reserves, payload of 24 passengers and baggage for a commercial version or a military version with a 10,000 lb payload, capable of carrying two GE F110 engines for the F-14D, and a spot factor requirement of 60 feet by 29 feet.

For a moment they had me going, I thought it was a real proposal!! I did wonder why a STOL type was proposed when they have cats and traps, and the penny did drop. Opps!