CVF Construction

[Obi Wan Russell]

One little correction, the problems was with Midways were related hanger height not size. They could launch and recover tomcats full load, they could hanger them, they just couldn't do certain maintenance tests. Midway-sized designs conceived after WWII like CVV or the QE class would have the ability to launch, recover, hanger, and maintain anything that has ever flown off a carrier, including Tomcats. Just not as many of them.

No arguments here, other than to say that the Midways hangar height issues were a product of their original design restrictions, losing hangar height (as part of the ship's freeboard) to offset the need for an armoured flight deck. FDR and Coral Sea did however end their lives with slightly less capable catapults then Midway but still managed to operate Phantoms and Hornets to their credit.

[Bager1968]

The Midways did not in any way "lose hangar height"!

Their height was 17' 6".

This was the same as both the earlier "non-armoured flight deck" Essex class and the contemporary British carriers... the Colossus, Majestic, & Centaur classes of "non-armoured flight deck" light fleet carriers, "Audacious" class "armoured flight deck" fleet carriers (Eagle & Ark Royal), and the reconstructed fleet carrier Victorious.


That was simply the standard hangar height for a WW2/Korean War-era carrier, both USN and British.



The F-14 (designed 1966+) was the only aircraft the USN has ever operated from carriers that had problems with that 17' 6" hangar height... so I would get on Grumman for busting design requirements, not BuShips for the design of the Midways 24 years before design work was begun on the F-14.

[Distiller]

Concurrent launch and recovery (or the concept of flow optimization) is not a red hering. It's a usefull capability and that it's not usually done in peace time for safety reasons doesn't mean anything.

Here on these pictures the forward isle dictates bow cat placement on the CVF, so the launch position has to protrude into the angled deck. And the waist cat would have to be somewhat further back and out to deconflict with the angled deck and the arresting wires. And the position of the aft elevator relative to the arresting wires could also be better.

All in all it's a totally suboptimal use of real estate and tonnage for a 65k tons carrier. With the 20 or so F-35 they want to operate they could as well have gone for a straight deck carrier.

[19K11]

No argument from me on that, but they did start out as V/STOL ships where an angle deck wasnt really needed.

[flanker30]

The efficiency of an aircraft carrier, i.e. it's overall ability to operate aircraft increases exponentially with the size of the ship, which is why carriers get bigger whenever the opportunity arises. As ship steel is relatively cheap compared to other aspects of warship design, you save little and cause problems for your crew by making the ship smaller, but gain greatly at little cost by making the ship bigger. The US CVNs are capable of simltaneous launch and recovery as a by product of their size and design, not because it was an important design requirement. If a notional 65,000 tonne CV costs say £2 Billion, reducing the size of the ship to 40,000 tonnes will not save a third of the cost, you will be lucky if it saves 2-5%. For that miniscule saving, you get a far less capable ship with reduced potential for future developments. American carriers designed and built in the early 50s (Forrestal class) were able to adapt without major modification to aircraft that were not even concieved when they were. If they were still in service today they would have no difficulty operating the current and future generations of naval aircraft. The smaller Essex class could not do this, and the Midways (at least CV 42 and 43) would struggle. Size matters with carriers

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest US supercarrier (~100,000 tonnes) will cost $13.5 billion. If you can get a 65,000 tonne carrier for £2 billion (~$3 billion), that's less than a quarter of the price!

The key question is affordability. Even the American are baulking at the cost of carriers these days.

[Geoff_B]

The CVF design when originally selected was 300m long and the 20m removed from the lenth was mainly in the fwd end of the hanger which effectively put the end of the catapult into the angled landing deck when previously it was clear of it.

It should also be noted that they are using the 90m catapults, the shorter 75m ones would probably not foul the landing area but they prefer the capability of the full length cat over flight deck operational flexability !.

[ppp]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest US supercarrier (~100,000 tonnes) will cost $13.5 billion. If you can get a 65,000 tonne carrier for £2 billion (~$3 billion), that's less than a quarter of the price!

The key question is affordability. Even the American are baulking at the cost of carriers these days.

To be a good comparison though, it would need to a nuclear carrier, and CVF isn't, so it becomes more than just a matter of scaling.

[swerve]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest US supercarrier (~100,000 tonnes) will cost $13.5 billion. If you can get a 65,000 tonne carrier for £2 billion (~$3 billion), that's less than a quarter of the price!

They ain't £2 billion any more. Building delays (imposed by politicians) & adding catapults have put that up. They should still be cheaper per ton than US carriers, but you're not comparing like with like. US shipbuilding is notoriously expensive, even compared to British yards, different propulsion, etc. A true comparison would be a 100K ton US-built nuclear carrier with a 65K ton US-built nuclear carrier.

[Obi Wan Russell]

They ain't £2 billion any more. Building delays (imposed by politicians) & adding catapults have put that up. They should still be cheaper per ton than US carriers, but you're not comparing like with like. US shipbuilding is notoriously expensive, even compared to British yards, different propulsion, etc. A true comparison would be a 100K ton US-built nuclear carrier with a 65K ton US-built nuclear carrier.

The CVF programme coers more than the cost of building two ships, it also covers the cost of reorganising the entire UK warship building industry and the reconstruction of the Rosyth drydock (incl. purchase and assembly of the Goliath crane for the dock), which meant a lot of money was spent before the first steel was cut for the carriers. The actual unit cost of the CVFs still isn't far beyond the £2 Billion figure, and the press reports should be judged in the light of their own particular bias and that of whoever is feeding them the latest scare stories. Extract the political interference (the delays to completion and changes to the specs at the last minute) and the price stabilises back down again.

Nuclear power really does distort the price comparisons too, far more than most realise. Which is one reason the CVFs don't have it, as it would mean the difference between affording two ships or just one, as happened to the French with CdG.

[Bager1968]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the latest US supercarrier (~100,000 tonnes) will cost $13.5 billion. If you can get a 65,000 tonne carrier for £2 billion (~$3 billion), that's less than a quarter of the price!

The key question is affordability. Even the American are baulking at the cost of carriers these days.

Actually, that $13.5 billion* is total cost for "first-of-class"... which includes design & development and shipyard adjustments for the new systems and equipment, as well as the actual ship.

The actual "per-ship cost" is ~$9 billion*, which is what is budgeted for the second "Ford-class CVN"... CVN-79 JFK.


Yes, this IS rather more expensive than the ~$5 billion* per ship for the last couple of Nimitz-class CVNs (CVN-76 & CVN-77), but not what your cost quote tries to convince us of.


Additionally, the new equipment and other changes mean that, if things work as planned, CVN-78 will cost about $5 billion less in "life-time operating costs" than will CVN-77 (in part by reducing the ship's crew from 3,200 to about 2,200)... so the "total-life purchase & operating cost" of CVN-78 should be about $1 billion less than CVN-77!



* FY2009 dollars

[flanker30]

Actually, that $13.5 billion* is total cost for "first-of-class"... which includes design & development and shipyard adjustments for the new systems and equipment, as well as the actual ship.

The actual "per-ship cost" is ~$9 billion*, which is what is budgeted for the second "Ford-class CVN"... CVN-79 JFK.


Yes, this IS rather more expensive than the ~$5 billion* per ship for the last couple of Nimitz-class CVNs (CVN-76 & CVN-77), but not what your cost quote tries to convince us of.


Additionally, the new equipment and other changes mean that, if things work as planned, CVN-78 will cost about $5 billion less in "life-time operating costs" than will CVN-77 (in part by reducing the ship's crew from 3,200 to about 2,200)... so the "total-life purchase & operating cost" of CVN-78 should be about $1 billion less than CVN-77!



* FY2009 dollars

$13.5 billion is the current Navy estimate of the cost of CVN-80.

[benroethig]

No argument from me on that, but they did start out as V/STOL ships where an angle deck wasn't really needed.

In very early planning, then again they were also 40k tons. Anything on earnest as been based off the Thales CATOBAR design, even in STOVL.

[Bager1968]

$13.5 billion is the current Navy estimate of the cost of CVN-80.

OK... I looked around, and found this August 2010 report which supports a $11.5 billion for CVN-78, $10.4 billion for CVN-79, and $13.6 billion for CVN-80... and lists reasons for the cost increases.

Not good.

Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier
Program: Background and Issues for Congress 24 August 2010 Congressional Research Service

[Prom]

Interesting. Re-raises the debate which briefly flared in the US when the CVF design, capability and costs first became known to the USN.

Would the USN be better off with 30 CVF type vessels than 10 Ford Class. Capital and through-life costs would be broadly comparable (I think slightly cheaper for CVF but I may be wrong).
Would give you
- greater flexibility
- greater total sortie generate rate
- wider coverage
- achieveable force capability is more resistant to effects of attack, accidents etc
- More options for building, maintenance etc
- no restrictions on ports due to nuclear power

[benroethig]

Let's say its just 2:1 instead of 3:1 here's what the unsaid costs would be
-1/3rd more cruisers/destroyers/submarines to escort CVF
-Substantially increased tanking fleet with an emphasis on fast combat support ships to cover substantially increased fuel demands by escorts and the carrier.
-50-100% increase in number of Electronic Warfare and AEW&C aircraft
-increased number of flag and post-command Captain billets.
Overall Whatever you save in carrier construction, you spend elsewhere.

[Frosty]

Interesting. Re-raises the debate which briefly flared in the US when the CVF design, capability and costs first became known to the USN.

Would the USN be better off with 30 CVF type vessels than 10 Ford Class. Capital and through-life costs would be broadly comparable (I think slightly cheaper for CVF but I may be wrong).
Would give you
- greater flexibility
- greater total sortie generate rate
- wider coverage
- achieveable force capability is more resistant to effects of attack, accidents etc
- More options for building, maintenance etc
- no restrictions on ports due to nuclear power

I don't think you can compare CVF to US CVNs like that. CVF are strike carriers by design where as the US CVN are blue water fleet carriers designed to be part of a CBG. With the rise of China the US may still feel that they need that capability but in the UK we don't. We don't have enough ships or resources and we don't have any credible threat to our sovereignty that would require a fleet carrier.

[Nick H]

Given that Centre Blocks 03A and 03B were lowered onto LB03 on 23 and 30 Sept respectively, I assume Centre Block 03C was positioned last Friday 7 Oct. It would appear that each centre block takes a week to weld into place, so I am assuming that the first of the sponsons (SP03) will be swung onto the block at the end of this week or the beginning of next week. Does anyone have any more reliable data?

Having been in touch with the new Communications Manager his optimistic response about the imminent updating of the ACA website proved to be wide of the mark. However, in a further exchange he has said "New images and text are with the website host and should be uploaded presently, including a link to a section which will be updated frequently with build progress." Lets hope this proves to be the case.

Nick H

[Prom]

@benroathig

I appreciate that there are other costs, but the same is true the other way around (e.g. nuclear decommissioning which is far from cheap). Plus the QEC complement is much less than 1/3 of that for Ford. That ripples through into many other savings elsewhere

You only need more escorts if you use the additional flexibility by sending them in different directions, you could include 3 per CBG without any more escorts. Even if splitting it would not necessarily imply that many more escorts

@Frosty. Apart from putting a different aircraft mix on QEC (which she could take now she is CATOBAR) I cannot think of anything in her design that makes her less suitable for being the core of a blue water CBG:
Comms : better than Nimitz and I suspect as good as Ford
CMS: better than Nimitz and I suspect better than Ford
ATC: much better than either

What else do you think makes CVF unsuitable for a blue-water CBG?

The only big downside is the need for additional fuel replenishment. But given the need for those anyway to fuel the aircraft I don't think that is a deciding factor against all the advantages

[Frosty]

@benroathig

@Frosty. Apart from putting a different aircraft mix on QEC (which she could take now she is CATOBAR) I cannot think of anything in her design that makes her less suitable for being the core of a blue water CBG:
Comms : better than Nimitz and I suspect as good as Ford
CMS: better than Nimitz and I suspect better than Ford
ATC: much better than either

What else do you think makes CVF unsuitable for a blue-water CBG?

The only big downside is the need for additional fuel replenishment. But given the need for those anyway to fuel the aircraft I don't think that is a deciding factor against all the advantages

US CVNs can achieve much higher sustained speeds. Another important issue is the survivability of the carriers CVF have very little or no armour (maybe some key areas propulsion, ammunition, C2) they are also built much closer to commercial standards. Compare this to US CVNs which have a much greater degree of armour and are not at all built to commercial standards this means they have greater survivability and crucially they have more of a chance of staying combat operational.

[flanker30]

Interesting. Re-raises the debate which briefly flared in the US when the CVF design, capability and costs first became known to the USN.

Would the USN be better off with 30 CVF type vessels than 10 Ford Class. Capital and through-life costs would be broadly comparable (I think slightly cheaper for CVF but I may be wrong).
Would give you
- greater flexibility
- greater total sortie generate rate
- wider coverage
- achieveable force capability is more resistant to effects of attack, accidents etc
- More options for building, maintenance etc
- no restrictions on ports due to nuclear power

Same arguments would apply to the RN having 3-4 operational carriers of 30,000-35,000 tonnes, instead of just one 65,000 tonne underutilised monster.

[Prom]

Anything to support that differential with respect to armour?


Speed differentials are of course true, though replenishment ships are usually the limiting factor of speed of a CBG/fleet anyway. I would also argue that with 3x as many carriers to deploy, you are more likely to have one in the right area in the first place so you don't need top speed

[Frosty]

Anything to support that differential with respect to armour?


Speed differentials are of course true, though replenishment ships are usually the limiting factor of speed of a CBG/fleet anyway. I would also argue that with 3x as many carriers to deploy, you are more likely to have one in the right area in the first place so you don't need top speed

It is documented that during mid 2003 most of the armour that was planned in earlier designs was deleted for the delta design. In 2007 it was also noted by CVF IPT Team Leader, Rear Admiral Bob Love that Specific Naval and Defence Standards will be used in areas where a commercial equivalent is not appropriate such as the magazines. On the other hand and I doubt anyone will argue with this the US CVNs are built to full military standards and important areas are protected with 2.5 inches of Kevlar armour also if I remember correctly the Nimitz class also have an armoured belt.
I think you can clearly see that there are distinct differences between the level of armour and indeed what standards the ships are being built to (CVF more commercial, US CVNs full military standards) the reason for this is not just because of the cost but also the roles they are expected to fulfil.
On the issue of speed I’m no naval expert but I thought it was not just about getting from A to B but also the ability to outmanoeuvre the enemy.

[Prom]

Thanks Frosty, I missed the fact that the CVF armour had been removed,

Still, I reckon you could add it back in without making the trade-off that different.

As for speed, in theory you can out-manoeuvre an enemy, but you still can't do that if the replenishment ships can't keep up. In practice with modern sensing technology I think it would be damned difficult. Very hard to keep a CBG (including aircraft) hidden from RESM, CESM, sonar and IR

[Distiller]

The USN CVNs can use their speed only for limited dashs, as otherwise they lose their escorts (don't think in a hot situation they'd go without escorts, as is/was sometimes done in exercises). I guess a Burke at 30kts constant would have to refill every other day. There aren't enough fast fleet tanker for that in the USN. The sustained speed argument would only count if the USN still had nuclear powered escorts. And would build nuclear powered fast fleet replenishers ...

Speed is important, as you can keep large stretches of enemy coast (or sectors of ocean) under threat, while at the same time being unpredictable and reducing your time within the enemy reach.

[Jonesy]

I'm led to believe that the USN practised RAS ops from the CVN's bunkers to conventionally fueled escorts on a reasonably frequent basis and that, as it is in the RN, RAS ops with friendly states auxilliaries are practised frequently.

Detaching the fleet train for a speed run is hardly uncommon inter or intra-theatre. Certainly a lack of nuclear-powered escorts does not stop CVN's undertaking speed-runs. More planning is required to support such a deployment but the CVN's higher sustained speed is advantageous under specific conditions. In manoevre warfare the speed advantage is clear - gaining position ahead of an adversary, forcing a wider search radius for an opponent, complicating an opposing submarines intercept geometry etc are all direct benefits. A true Fleet unit is a fast ship for these reasons.

[serge]

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...rary-main.aspx

thats good, the ACA website have a few new interesting pictures of the pieceing together of blocks,interesting of the catobar picture update in portsmouth,thanks ACA.

[serge]

I have just noticed in the picture of the catobar carrier in portsmouth,just behind the forward bridge about window level,looks like the emblum of hms queen elizabeth! does this mean she will be fitted with catobar? i personaly think both will in time but im being sensible.:diablo:

[Liger30]

Good to finally see updates on the ACA website! But the image on the "Carrier Strike Force" page has been done on the cheap: it is an image of a USN F35C approaching a very US carrier vessel!

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.c...ike-force.aspx

[ppp]

@Liger30

So we can expect the engines to be facing the front, the cats out to each side, and the elevators to go from sea level to the hangar?

[Pongoglo]

Think the 'alongside Portsmouth' image is the best of the CATOBAR's weve seen yet. This is going to be a very good looking ship (and we would hope capable as well!). Also interesting is that the image entitled Queen Elizabeth Class at sea' shows two aircraft ready to go on the 'cats' and a third coming into land with hook deployed. Does this imply the capability for simultaneous recovery and launch, or am I reading too much?