Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Witcha
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jun 2010
    • 1241

    Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
    Odd. I'd heard it was 40. You got a source?

    And from that 40 it's meant to be (at full war load) 36 F35's and 4 helos.
    http://www.helium.com/items/1442066-...the-royal-navy
    Among various other news sources available via googling. Thanks for the clarification. For a 65000t vessel it seems to be an 'inefficient' design by the traditional Western standards(1000t = 1 aircraft?).

    Comment

    • nocutstoRAF
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • May 2010
      • 954

      Originally posted by Witcha View Post
      http://www.helium.com/items/1442066-...the-royal-navy
      Among various other news sources available via googling. Thanks for the clarification. For a 65000t vessel it seems to be an 'inefficient' design by the traditional Western standards(1000t = 1 aircraft?).
      According the Royal Navy 40 air craft is the maximum expected Air Group

      http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operatio...s-and-figures/
      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

      Comment

      • RVFHarrier
        Rank 3 Registered User
        • May 2010
        • 105

        I was always wondering why such a huge vessel would only be capable of operating 40 aircraft, according to official sources the hangar for CVF is able to hold 20 aircraft. Forgive my ignorance on this matter, I've never really been able to find an answer (and boy have I looked), but why is a ship that weighs 1/3 more than the CdG capable of carrying the same amount of aircraft? I understand the living quarters are much bigger to make life onboard easier, but are they adding in luxury at the expense of effectiveness?

        Comment

        • Witcha
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2010
          • 1241

          I think the fact that the F-35B's wings don't fold for stowage may have something to do with it.

          Comment

          • Wanshan
            Senior Member
            • Sep 2004
            • 3929

            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
            I think the fact that the F-35B's wings don't fold for stowage may have something to do with it.
            A little, but not a whole lot (particularly not if embarking a mix SHAR + GR9).

            Wing Span:
            - F-35A/B 10,67 m.
            - F-35C 13,12 m (9,90 m folded).
            - Harrier II (AV-8B Plus/ GR9) 9.25m
            - Harrier FA2 7.8m
            - Rafale 10.8m
            - F-18A/B/C/D 12.3 m (unfolded)
            - F-18E/F 13.62 m (unfolded)

            Length:
            - F-35A/B/C and Harrier II about 15.5m
            - Harier FA2 14.16m (13.06 with nosecone folded)
            - Rafale 15.27m
            - F-18A/B/C/D 17.1 m
            - F-18E/F 18.31 m

            Comment

            • MisterQ
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2008
              • 475

              I seriously doubt that 40 aircraft is Max capacity, the hanger is said to carry 24 (old BAe design) and the deck can easily spot 30+ (drawings show enough room for 30 F35 with space left for several helicopters with blades forlded without interfering with the lifts or take-offs).

              Remember, HMS Hermes had a total capacity of more than 30 and she was 50m shorter and 30m narrower, hell even the Ivincibles can carry 22+ and they're tiny.

              Comment

              • harryRIEDL
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2006
                • 375

                Originally posted by MisterQ View Post
                I seriously doubt that 40 aircraft is Max capacity, the hanger is said to carry 24 (old BAe design) and the deck can easily spot 30+ (drawings show enough room for 30 F35 with space left for several helicopters with blades forlded without interfering with the lifts or take-offs).

                Remember, HMS Hermes had a total capacity of more than 30 and she was 50m shorter and 30m narrower, hell even the Ivincibles can carry 22+ and they're tiny.
                Total capacity isn't important probably could carry 60+ aircraft but it wouldn't be as efficient as carrying 40. Lots of re-spotting after each aircraft movement slowing the overall sortie rate, getting less bombs on target.
                You hit the Midway problem. An aircraft carrier desgined to carry 120 aircraft only carrying 90 because that all it can handle

                Plus this carrier will be the first supercarrier/full sized carrier in RN service since the old Ark Royal whent to the breakers, its going to be steep learning curve what to do with all that space and lastly the planes are larger, Rafael sized which have cut down on the amount carried on CdG which could carry 40 odd SuE and F8 but far less Rafaels
                To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote

                always look on the bright side of life monty python

                Comment

                • perfectgeneral
                  Quality over quantity
                  • Sep 2007
                  • 70

                  Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier Construction

                  Oxley to provide LED navigation lights for aircraft carriers
                  28 Jun 2010

                  Northrop Grumman Corp. has chosen Oxley Developments to design and create LED navigation and signal lights for two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

                  Oxley Developments, an LED lighting manufacturer, has been awarded a contract by Northrop Grumman Corporation to provide detailed engineering of LED navigation and signal lights for the two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers currently under construction for the Royal Navy. The value of this contract is confidential.

                  from: http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/6/16
                  Beginning to see the light?

                  The true cost of these aircraft carriers is in the other ships and aircraft that have been lost to keep them in the budget up to this point.

                  I sincerely hope that future governments recognise the RUSA Strategic Raiding option as a signpost to a more navally oriented defence force. The large armies of the 20th century saw Britain drawn into empire crippling battles while leaving her relatively unprepared for defence of vital sea lanes and lucrative interests abroad.

                  No matter how it is done, ensuring that food and other resources sufficient to supply Great Britain and Northern Ireland can get through is the first duty of any defence force. Immediately after the second world war the lesson learnt was that convoy escort should have been the first area met by pre war build up and that peace time levels of convoy escort capability should have been higher. The geography of the world hasn't changed enough (channel tunnel, air freight) to change that. Perhaps MPAs have a greater role to play these days, but the principle still holds.

                  Beyond that Aircraft carrier groups, nuclear submarines, cyber defence, domestic air interception, intelligence, domestic COIN and space communications are clear defence priorities for a state such as ours. Unless we have committed to defend Afghanistan indefinitely (that would be rash) I expect the big saving to be a gradual reduction in the army to less than half it's current size.

                  Reading the Guardian and Independent as frequently, if not more so, than the Times and Telegraph doesn't make me a head in the sand pacifist. I resent this shallow (narrow?) characterisation.

                  Personally I think a permanent ring fence of 2.75% of GDP on defence spending is far more practical than the 2% suggested earlier in this thread. Excluding operational costs and strategic nuclear deterrent. I'd exclude the Astute class, within that deterrent, too. Four nuclear boats ordered every 7.5 years seems to be the minimum to sustain design and build capability. Build new reactor cores for a thirty year life for a final fleet of 12 SSN and 4 SSBN.

                  PS the QEs are optimised for about 40 aircraft (to maximise sorties), but you could clog them up with more aircraft in the traditional manner. I doubt that they will ever carry more than 36 F-35s, 4 AEW aircraft and 6 ASW aircraft. Although one squadron of Lightning IIs is the likely peacetime quota.
                  Last edited by perfectgeneral; 6th July 2010, 08:05.
                  Halve the army and turn the forces left over into a joint Marine Corps.

                  Comment

                  • Frosty
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2008
                    • 334

                    TBH I don't see how you can talk about the RN needing to be a 'defence force' and that carriers are not needed and then go on to say that one of the roles of the Royal Navy should be defence of 'lucrative interests abroad'. Now please tell me how that will work without force projection ships and more importantly air cover?

                    Comment

                    • Super Nimrod
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2005
                      • 1053

                      Has the AEW situation re the CVF's been bought to a conclusion yet ?

                      Reason I was thinking this is the press release in Flight Global the other day re Mantis, shows something that is starting to look pretty mature.

                      http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-roll-out.html


                      How long before someone starts to think, maybe this can do AEW up a ski jump ? 50k ceiling, 36 hours endurance, no crew to worry about ..................

                      Comment

                      • Frosty
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2008
                        • 334

                        The MoD really needs to take advantage of the investment that it and BAE have put into it's UAV projects, there is potential here for BAE to become a market leader in this field.

                        Comment

                        • kev 99
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Aug 2008
                          • 1535

                          Originally posted by Super Nimrod View Post
                          Has the AEW situation re the CVF's been bought to a conclusion yet ?

                          Reason I was thinking this is the press release in Flight Global the other day re Mantis, shows something that is starting to look pretty mature.

                          http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-roll-out.html


                          How long before someone starts to think, maybe this can do AEW up a ski jump ? 50k ceiling, 36 hours endurance, no crew to worry about ..................
                          I rather suspect there are people thinking this already.

                          Comment

                          • Grim901
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • May 2009
                            • 1143

                            Originally posted by Super Nimrod View Post
                            Has the AEW situation re the CVF's been bought to a conclusion yet ?

                            Reason I was thinking this is the press release in Flight Global the other day re Mantis, shows something that is starting to look pretty mature.

                            http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-roll-out.html


                            How long before someone starts to think, maybe this can do AEW up a ski jump ? 50k ceiling, 36 hours endurance, no crew to worry about ..................
                            +1. Wonder what its take off and landing distances are though.

                            Originally posted by Frosty View Post
                            The MoD really needs to take advantage of the investment that it and BAE have put into it's UAV projects, there is potential here for BAE to become a market leader in this field.
                            Definitely. They have so much potential. Lets just hope that the Uk and France can come to some joint agreement on buying Mantis together and that the UK commits to a Taranis follow on.

                            Comment

                            • blandy
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2008
                              • 25

                              with a 36hr endurance does it need to be based on the carrier. A fleet could transit back and forth autonomously whilst miantaining a supervised orbit.

                              Comment

                              • swerve
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jun 2005
                                • 13610

                                Endurance is not range. UAVs like Mantis are rather slow. Maximum speed isn't published, but estimates around the 250 knot mark have been made. Maximum endurance would be at economical cruising speed, which would be lower.

                                You'd need runways spread around the world, & have to fly your UAVs out to them, assemble 'em, fly them while the fleet is in range, then move 'em on as the fleet moves on. You'd need quite a few UAVs, supporting aircraft, & ground crews as well as the string of runways.

                                You'd also run into the problems of areas too far from a friendly airfield. For example, its endurance over a fleet off the Falklands, while flying from Ascension, would be non-existent - and there are other places even more remote from an airfield guaranteed to be friendly.
                                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                Justinian

                                Comment

                                • Super Nimrod
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2005
                                  • 1053

                                  Yes, I suspect the technical problems of operating a UAV for AEW of of a CVF would be significant. However, there is an opportunity here for BAE to at least start thinking about this sort of stuff. Time will tell.

                                  Comment

                                  • pjhydro
                                    Rank 4 Registered User
                                    • Apr 2009
                                    • 886

                                    I think the reality will be sticking with the status quo regarding AEW. The ASaC kit will be transferred to Merlins and they will certainly be in service for at least a decade and more likely (with a radar update etc) well into the 2020s. I would make an educated guess that a "new" AEW solution will not be on the cards until the middle of the next decade, by which time a whole new breed of airframes and UAVs will be in the frame.

                                    Comment

                                    • Liger30
                                      Armed Forces supporter
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 901

                                      Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                                      I think the reality will be sticking with the status quo regarding AEW. The ASaC kit will be transferred to Merlins and they will certainly be in service for at least a decade and more likely (with a radar update etc) well into the 2020s. I would make an educated guess that a "new" AEW solution will not be on the cards until the middle of the next decade, by which time a whole new breed of airframes and UAVs will be in the frame.
                                      It is the most likely solution to the MASC requirement indeed. And it is not bad, anyway. The Merlin is a proven and very capable platform, and the latest version of the Cerberus radar and AEW suite is good as well.

                                      Of course, i have this dream of mine of an agreement between UK and France... i read a french article, and much as i don't really know the french language, i think i understood that the french navy is reportedly considering searching an agreement with the british government and have the Prince of Wales fitted with at least a catapult, so that the second CVF can be "shared" and fill a bit of their requirement for a second deck at sea when the CdG is out for refit.
                                      Here is the URL to the article http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=113591. Someone may be able to understand it more clearly than i do and share the info in it in this forum.

                                      Anyway, with the french willing to help funding the fitting of at least a catapult to at least one of the two CVF, my dream (probably hopeless, but interesting) is to see a broader agreement being reached, which sees the Royal Navy switching to the F35C and fitting catapults to the CVFs. In that case, the navy would finally be fully and really interoperable with French and US carriers, and the UK and France could pool resources far more efficiently.
                                      In that case, i can see french Hawkeyes flying from the Queen Elisabeth flat top as part of the deal... and the Cerberus-equipped Merlin deployed on Type 45 vessels to improve dramatically their effectiveness against air threats. Or they could be used as mini-AWACS on land, as the Sea Kings in Afghanistan are already doing.

                                      Sharing pilot training with FRance and US, and getting a plane that's probably going to require less mainteinance than the complex VTOL-geared F35B (and is going to cost less unitarily because built in higher numbers and because lacking the complex lift fan and such) may make this scenario less economically-unaffordable as it may seem at first.
                                      Catapult costs would be shared with the french, if they truly are willing to collaborate: after all, they are not gonna get their second carrier, but they still want to have a deck on the sea.
                                      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                      Comment

                                      • Jonesy
                                        Neo-conversative
                                        • Jan 2000
                                        • 5097

                                        Originally posted by Super Nimrod View Post
                                        Yes, I suspect the technical problems of operating a UAV for AEW of of a CVF would be significant. However, there is an opportunity here for BAE to at least start thinking about this sort of stuff. Time will tell.
                                        Genral Atomics advertised, albeit very briefly, a carrier-capable version of their Mariner UAV that would have been similar in concept to a naval Mantis. That would seem to suggest, very superficially, that the problems would not be insurmountable.

                                        The real beauty of naval Mantis would be if it could be made modular though. The basic air vehicle could have use in force protection, ISTAR, offboard ELINT, comms relay, perhaps even modest COD duties in conjunction with the AEW. In short a very, very valuable platform to have on a non-cat carrier.

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13610

                                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                          Of course, i have this dream of mine of an agreement between UK and France... i read a french article, and much as i don't really know the french language, i think i understood that the french navy is reportedly considering searching an agreement with the british government and have the Prince of Wales fitted with at least a catapult, so that the second CVF can be "shared" and fill a bit of their requirement for a second deck at sea when the CdG is out for refit.
                                          Here is the URL to the article http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=113591.
                                          No, it's a discussion of a theoretical possibility, based on Sunday Express speculation about what the SDR may contain. There's no evidence for it as far as I can see, & the article doesn't claim the French navy is considering it.
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X