Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • kev 99
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2008
    • 1535

    Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
    Such a pity: for the vast sums being spent on these great big white elephants, the Navy could have got half-a-dozen smaller but almost equally capable carriers.
    No way in hell could it, you would end of buying more of the expensive stuff (electronics and propulsion systems) to fill your smaller fleet of MUCH LESS USEFUL ships, which would also require more crew to operate. Your fleet costs more and can do less, the only thing it can do better is be in more places at once.

    Comment

    • Frosty
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2008
      • 334

      Originally posted by kev 99 View Post
      No way in hell could it, you would end of buying more of the expensive stuff (electronics and propulsion systems) to fill your smaller fleet of MUCH LESS USEFUL ships, which would also require more crew to operate. Your fleet costs more and can do less, the only thing it can do better is be in more places at once.
      Exactly we don't need large numbers of carriers just enough so one is available at any time but we do need effective carriers.

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by Bager1968 View Post
        Smaller wing = faster roll-rate, greater G-rating, and better low altitude/rough air flight characteristics.

        Better for A-A work, and for low-level A-G work.
        Was it so simple, we'd all be engineers. A wing is nothing if it is not balanced with the rest of the plane and its flight envelope. Shape, thickness, surface... all factors. There's no such thing as a "big" or "small" wing.
        Delta wings like Typhoon's, Gripen's and Rafale's aren't small in the slightest, speaking of surface... but the planes have awesome performances because their design is instable, so much that without the computer system the pilot would be unable to keep them under control.
        Too many factors, too much technology. Let's avoid claims that are arguable at the best.
        "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

        • Stryker73
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2010
          • 274

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
          You know what, i totally agree with the anlysis. But you forget that the current assumption for the SDR seems to be that the UK is going "to act always as part of a coalition".
          Which punches in the eye any concept of national sovereignty and independent acting.
          Not true. It was the green paper that suggested that however the Defence Sec Liam Fox has firmly stated that he and his party does not agree with that.

          Whilst most acts will be as part as a coalition, he said the UK must retain the ability to act alone if unique UK national interests are threatened.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
            Not true. It was the green paper that suggested that however the Defence Sec Liam Fox has firmly stated that he and his party does not agree with that.

            Whilst most acts will be as part as a coalition, he said the UK must retain the ability to act alone if unique UK national interests are threatened.
            Let's hope so.
            You'll pardon me and my doubts about it, but i have no confidence left for this kind of things, you know.

            The proof is simple: if the carriers survive BOTH and are equipped decently with planes, we'll have a UK capable to act outside its islands even on its own.
            If the carriers aren't saved, i don't see how they can claim to be able to act independently outside the reach of land-based Typhoons.

            As the Army said in 1982: "without air cover, we won't get there."
            Be it COIN or state-on-state, you'll need air cover. And carriers will be handy.
            "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

              Such a pity: for the vast sums being spent on these great big white elephants, the Navy could have got half-a-dozen smaller but almost equally capable carriers.
              3 major inaccuracies in one sentence - impressive!

              1, In comparitive terms the CVF isnt a programme that has vast sums being spent on it. 4bn for a capability that will last a minimum of 30 years and designed to run on the same budget as the preceeding class. Hardly wanton excess is it?.

              2, Compare the cost difference between a Cavour (the kind of small carrier you are alluding to) and CVF. I doubt its even fully 2:1 let alone 6:1. The size of the carrier is not the key driver of its cost.

              3, Compare the sortie generation rate of CVF versus Cavour. Compare the unsupported endurance CVF against Cavour. CVF is the size it is because it needs to support a defined sortie rate for a specific duration without UNREP. Its 65k ton for a reason...and only the greatest of fools would consider the possibility that a carriers size is defined by the need to "keep up with the Joneses".

              Comment

              • Stryker73
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2010
                • 274

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                Let's hope so.
                You'll pardon me and my doubts about it, but i have no confidence left for this kind of things, you know.
                Well for sure that is their intention, since all parties had an input into the green paper

                'UK must retain military capability to fight alone, says Liam Fox'
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...efence-liamfox

                The proof is simple: if the carriers survive BOTH and are equipped decently with planes, we'll have a UK capable to act outside its islands even on its own.
                If the carriers aren't saved, i don't see how they can claim to be able to act independently outside the reach of land-based Typhoons.

                As the Army said in 1982: "without air cover, we won't get there."
                Be it COIN or state-on-state, you'll need air cover. And carriers will be handy.
                I don't think anyone will disagree with that premise, which is why I think both carriers will be built following an SDSR that recommends them for use as the UK's big conventional stick.

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                  Well for sure that is their intention, since all parties had an input into the green paper

                  'UK must retain military capability to fight alone, says Liam Fox'
                  http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...efence-liamfox

                  I don't think anyone will disagree with that premise, which is why I think both carriers will be built following an SDSR that recommends them for use as the UK's big conventional stick.
                  That's sensible. And i definitely hope that the SDR will reach that decision and safeguard the carriers. They truly are the cornerstone of the defence of the Uk, and it is the only one thing that Labour, in a way or another, had got right when it kept saying it. Shame for THE REST of what they did to the armed forces, but yes...

                  However, i keep fearing. The frequency with which the carriers are called in by the press as "expensive programs" and never as strategic assets worries me a lot for PoW.
                  This said, i have hopes... And i must admit that the CVFs fascinate me so much that i'm gonna come in the Uk from Italy the day that HMS Queen Elizabeth is launched, to see the biggest warship ever built in Europe take to the sea.
                  Not everyone realize it, but these carriers truly are awesome pieces of shipbuilding technology.
                  "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

                  • Stryker73
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2010
                    • 274

                    I would ignore mainstream British press defence reporting, they're either usually clueless, put a spin on the headline which doesn't match the content of the article or the writer has an agenda.

                    The only things I ever believe is when they quote someone and name them.

                    Comment

                    • H_K
                      H_K
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Dec 2007
                      • 630

                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                      This very, very interesting graphic from Richard Beedall's Navy Matters summarizes the results of the F35 versions: effective performances against requirements:

                      You can notice that the F35C and A exceded the requirement for range, the F35C scoring 732 naval miles combat radius against a 600 nm requirement.
                      The F35A scored 605, and the F35B failed to meet the requirement of 450, scoring 442.

                      However, the logistical footprint of the F35C resulted only slightly higher than those of the F35B UK: again, if the analysis was carried out considering US Air Wing number for the C and UK air wing numbers for the B, we have a confirmation of my assumption that the F35B has a far larger unitary logistic footprint than the F35C.

                      Last noticeable thing, the failure of the F35B to meet all the STOVL requirements. This should have been fixed, at least partially, from 2004 to today. Save for the Bring-Back weight, and in fact the Royal Navy is planning short rolling landings for its F35B and NOT vertical landings: in order to do the vertical landing, the F35B would have to drop unsed bombs in the sea.
                      A No-No for a laser guided bomb costing half a million dollars.
                      That's old performance data from 2004. Here's an overlay of 2008 data (sorry it's not more readable, but you get the gist of it: for each pair of bars, top one is 2004, bottom one is 2008).



                      Basically, the F-35's weight issues were taken care of. Notice how the F-35B's STOVL performance has improved, although bring back is still only a measly ~5,000lbs.

                      Also notice how the F-35C's performance has deteriorated in almost all respects: range, sortie generation, logistics footprint. Range won't be much more than for the F-35A, which is not good because as everyone said, that indicates high drag.
                      Last edited by H_K; 10th July 2010, 15:22.

                      Comment

                      • Frosty
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2008
                        • 334

                        Originally posted by Jonesy View Post

                        3, Compare the sortie generation rate of CVF versus Cavour. Compare the unsupported endurance CVF against Cavour. CVF is the size it is because it needs to support a defined sortie rate for a specific duration without UNREP. Its 65k ton for a reason...and only the greatest of fools would consider the possibility that a carriers size is defined by the need to "keep up with the Joneses".
                        Does anyone know the official sortie rate for Cavour? The Sortie rate of CVF is 110 I think Nimitz is 140 think I read that CDG sortie rate is about 70 I would guess that Cavour would be about 35-40?

                        Comment

                        • swerve
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2005
                          • 13610

                          Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
                          for the vast sums being spent on these great big white elephants, the Navy could have got half-a-dozen smaller but almost equally capable carriers.
                          Not so. Price per ton goes down as tonnage goes up. Crewing needs are also non-linear. Capability (in terms of aircraft carriage & movements), on the other hand, is non-linear in the opposite direction. So one 65000 ton CVF can do more than the same tonnage of Invincible -sized F-35B carriers, with fewer crew, at less cost.

                          BTW, the MMI & Armada worked out a minimum size for efficient F-35B operations, & built ships to match. They're rather bigger than Invincible.

                          Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                          2, Compare the cost difference between a Cavour (the kind of small carrier you are alluding to) and CVF. I doubt its even fully 2:1 let alone 6:1. The size of the carrier is not the key driver of its cost.
                          Cavour 1.4bn euros. Per ton, that's about the same as the current estimate for CVF, BUT -
                          - it was several years ahead of CVF.
                          - CVF price has been inflated by the politically imposed building delay.
                          - Fincantieri is probably cheaper than BVT, & we'd build any hypothetical Cavour clone here, i.e. more expensively.

                          Which means that we'd almost certainly get rather less than two Cavour clones per CVF. Since crewing, fuel consumption etc. are non-linear, they'd cost more to run, as well. I reckon we'd get no more than three Cavour-type ships in place of two CVFs, with overall a lot less capacity than the CVFs.

                          That said, if we had to choose between two Cavour & one super-CVF, I'd go for two Cavour, but only on the eggs & basket principle.

                          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                          This said, i have hopes... And i must admit that the CVFs fascinate me so much that i'm gonna come in the Uk from Italy the day that HMS Queen Elizabeth is launched, to see the biggest warship ever built in Europe take to the sea.
                          I may see you there.
                          Last edited by swerve; 10th July 2010, 15:46.
                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                          Justinian

                          Comment

                          • Fedaykin
                            Fueled by Tea
                            • Dec 2005
                            • 5290

                            Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                            That's sensible. And i definitely hope that the SDR will reach that decision and safeguard the carriers. They truly are the cornerstone of the defence of the Uk, and it is the only one thing that Labour, in a way or another, had got right when it kept saying it. Shame for THE REST of what they did to the armed forces, but yes...

                            However, i keep fearing. The frequency with which the carriers are called in by the press as "expensive programs" and never as strategic assets worries me a lot for PoW.
                            This said, i have hopes... And i must admit that the CVFs fascinate me so much that i'm gonna come in the Uk from Italy the day that HMS Queen Elizabeth is launched, to see the biggest warship ever built in Europe take to the sea.
                            Not everyone realize it, but these carriers truly are awesome pieces of shipbuilding technology.
                            I must admit I am thinking of doing the same thing myself, probably have to organise an Aviation Forum trip to watch the big day! We can all drink a beer and such!!!

                            On that note can't wait to see the next big superblock make its trip to Rosyth. Must be due one soon!
                            Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                            Comment

                            • Fedaykin
                              Fueled by Tea
                              • Dec 2005
                              • 5290

                              Actually looking at the Babcock build video. the first major superblock to go in place at Rosyth is LB03 from North Govan/Scotstoun. Anybody know where they are with this block?

                              Once she is in the slip it will actually start to look like a ship is being built!
                              Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                              Comment

                              • Grim901
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2009
                                • 1143

                                One question that keeps bugging me, why are the USMC and UK F35Bs different in their performance characteristics? They are supposed to be the same plane. I understand why their performance targets may be different, but not the actual performance characteristics as indicated in those tables.

                                Logistics footprint for example, why does the UK seem to have a heavier footprint for maintaining the same aircraft?

                                And i'm definitely going to try and see QE when she's launched. On a similar topic, Merlin AEW should have been unveiled today shouldn't it? Anyone have any pics yet? (I still don't know why I didn't drive down to the Air Day, it's only 30 miles from me :S. But on the up side they do training flights past my house so I may get to see it in flight soonish).
                                Last edited by Grim901; 10th July 2010, 15:46.

                                Comment

                                • Fedaykin
                                  Fueled by Tea
                                  • Dec 2005
                                  • 5290

                                  Merlin AEW?

                                  When did this happen?
                                  Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                                  Comment

                                  • swerve
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jun 2005
                                    • 13610

                                    The Italian version? Been in service a few years. But the RN version will be different.
                                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                    Justinian

                                    Comment

                                    • Grim901
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2009
                                      • 1143

                                      Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                                      Merlin AEW?

                                      When did this happen?
                                      First i'd heard of it was a couple of day ago. Still not sure if the MOD has asked for it or if AW went ahead and did it themselves. Either way they've been very sneaky.

                                      Comment

                                      • Fedaykin
                                        Fueled by Tea
                                        • Dec 2005
                                        • 5290

                                        I suppose AW could fit the radome and ballest to demonstrate the concept.
                                        Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                                        Comment

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

                                          +1 for wanting to see the QE launch

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X