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
  • Fedaykin
    Fueled by Tea
    • Dec 2005
    • 5295

    Of course it won't really be a launch! Rather a floating out as she is being built in a dry dock rather then a slip.

    So I presume it will be a naming ceremony much like this one:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVVJU...eature=related
    Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      However the ceremony will be, it will be such a wonder to see the ship getting out the dock and into the water! It will worth the travel from Italy, for sure.

      The only thing that Cavour can held against the CVF is its armament. The Cavour is almost a destroyer, with the Aster missiles fit and the 76 mm Dardo guns. The CVF will be very lightly armed in that sense... Assuming, of course, that they are not completely unarmed. I'm sick of "fitted for but not whit", seriously. That phrase is the ruin of the finest warship in the world, the Type 45, and it would be a shame to have the QE going at sea without Phalanx and DS30 guns at the very least.

      What reassures me a bit is the wonder of CAMM missiles: their cold launch and lack of dedicated mission system and radar would allow to bolt a good load of canisters to the sides of the flight deck if there was a need for that.
      The Artizan radar of the carrier would target them for launch.

      As to the cost and capability analysis of "Cavour instead of CVF", you've been perfectly clear. I totally agree, the savings would be non existant... and the RN would never, never get 6, not 5 nor 4. 3 would have already been a miracle.

      No way, CVF is the right way to go, definitely.

      As to a beer at the launch of QE, it would be a pleasure and a honor to have one with you all in such happy day!
      "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

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
        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).
        The performances required to the planes and the conditions set for the use of the F35 were probably different: US Marines plan to use it in squadrons of a certain consistence, the RN of another.
        The profile of mission is also assumed different. That would explain the difference: the RN will have the F35 grouped in squadrons of as little as 9 or up to 12 F35 each, it seems, while the Marines use larger squadrons. That would explain the difference in sortie rate.
        I can't come up with an explanation for the logistic footprint, however... i have to admit that it surprises me that the UK footprint is larger.

        On another note, i was very relieved to learn that MBDA was autonomously reshaping the Meteor's wings to make it fit in the weapons bays of the F35. The MOD dropped the requirement for saving money, and that could have been a huge problem.

        After all, the F35 is needed to replace Sea Harrier, too... the loss of a true fighter with long-range missiles is the only huge flaw that the current navy has on the RN that re-took the Falklands.
        It would be nuts, now, to face the Argies with no Sea Harriers and no AMRAAMs.
        And since the UK is gonna move on from AMRAAM to Meteor, the F35 MUST be able to use them. And from Stealth config, into the weapons bay, to start with.
        "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

        • Fedaykin
          Fueled by Tea
          • Dec 2005
          • 5295

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
          However the ceremony will be, it will be such a wonder to see the ship getting out the dock and into the water! It will worth the travel from Italy, for sure.

          The only thing that Cavour can held against the CVF is its armament. The Cavour is almost a destroyer, with the Aster missiles fit and the 76 mm Dardo guns. The CVF will be very lightly armed in that sense... Assuming, of course, that they are not completely unarmed. I'm sick of "fitted for but not whit", seriously. That phrase is the ruin of the finest warship in the world, the Type 45, and it would be a shame to have the QE going at sea without Phalanx and DS30 guns at the very least.

          What reassures me a bit is the wonder of CAMM missiles: their cold launch and lack of dedicated mission system and radar would allow to bolt a good load of canisters to the sides of the flight deck if there was a need for that.
          The Artizan radar of the carrier would target them for launch.

          As to the cost and capability analysis of "Cavour instead of CVF", you've been perfectly clear. I totally agree, the savings would be non existant... and the RN would never, never get 6, not 5 nor 4. 3 would have already been a miracle.

          No way, CVF is the right way to go, definitely.

          As to a beer at the launch of QE, it would be a pleasure and a honor to have one with you all in such happy day!
          I don't think any of us like "Fitted for but not with" but it is better then "not at all". At least it means growth capability beyond primary role for the Type 45 rather then the Type 42 which had virtually no growth capability and the only way they got the Phalanx on was by taking off the ships boats.

          I look forward to the beer with all on hand when we get to that day! Actually it might be quite nice for us naval fans to have a bit of a gathering when it happens. Youtube regulars often organise meetups, it might be interesting to organise something like that in the future. Maybe with some lectures, I think there are a few of us here on this forum who could probably give us an interesting talk about their experiences.
          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
            I don't think any of us like "Fitted for but not with" but it is better then "not at all". At least it means growth capability beyond primary role for the Type 45 rather then the Type 42 which had virtually no growth capability and the only way they got the Phalanx on was by taking off the ships boats.

            I look forward to the beer with all on hand when we get to that day! Actually it might be quite nice for us naval fans to have a bit of a gathering when it happens. Youtube regulars often organise meetups, it might be interesting to organise something like that in the future. Maybe with some lectures, I think there are a few of us here on this forum who could probably give us an interesting talk about their experiences.
            Indeed, i can say that we'd all be far more happy if the Daring already had CEC, Phalanx, Harpoon, Stingray launchers and the 16 additional VLS, possibly MK41 type fitted with TacToms. But i certainly agree with you... since there's no money for that at the moment, it is certainly good to know that the ship is ready for all that, and will hopefully get all her capabilities in time. And when she does, she'll be a truly amazing ship, with no par in the world.

            And who knows, the launch of QE may be the first time a meeting pops up outside the internet. God knows how much i want to be present when the ship is rolled out of the yard after all!
            "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

            • flanker30
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Sep 2009
              • 517

              If there will only be two carriers, why does the RN need six Type 45s? (And they wanted twelve initially.) I thought their job was to provide air defence for a carrier group.

              Comment

              • swerve
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2005
                • 13612

                Because one Type 45 is not necessarily enough for a carrier group (what if one is lost in action?), & carriers are not the only ships which might need air defence.
                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                Justinian

                Comment

                • swerve
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2005
                  • 13612

                  Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                  ... the loss of a true fighter with long-range missiles is the only huge flaw that the current navy has on the RN that re-took the Falklands.
                  It would be nuts, now, to face the Argies with no Sea Harriers and no AMRAAMs.
                  The Sea Harriers we had in 1982 could only use Sidewinder (AIM-9L), so had no better missiles than the Harrier GR9. They did have a radar, which the GR9 lacks.
                  Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                  Justinian

                  Comment

                  • haerdalis
                    Rank 1 Registered User
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 183

                    Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                    I don't think any of us like "Fitted for but not with" but it is better then "not at all". At least it means growth capability beyond primary role for the Type 45 rather then the Type 42 which had virtually no growth capability.
                    Agree with you on this.

                    I thought however, that there was time till 2012 to decide about installing the steam generator or not below the deck. My understanding is that the CVF design is flexible enough to allow this.

                    So another 18 months to make the decision? Or has RN already decided which variant they will purchase? I also heard a rumor that the RAF/RN has an option to postpone the F35 decision. Is this true?

                    Comment

                    • swerve
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jun 2005
                      • 13612

                      The UK (not the RN - it's an MoD decision, on behalf of both the RN & RAF) wants F-35B. We've ordered a few F-35B for test & evaluation. All published plans, for the last decade, refer to F-35B.

                      The possibility of fitting catapults is a contingency for the cancellation or failure of F-35B, & to future-proof the carriers. It is not because no decision has yet been made. If we buy any model of F-35, & if the B model is built, we'll get B.
                      Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                      Justinian

                      Comment

                      • Fedaykin
                        Fueled by Tea
                        • Dec 2005
                        • 5295

                        Originally posted by swerve View Post
                        The Sea Harriers we had in 1982 could only use Sidewinder (AIM-9L), so had no better missiles than the Harrier GR9. They did have a radar, which the GR9 lacks.
                        Splitting hairs I know but they carried Aim-9G as well left over from the Phantom days.

                        Actually after all the broohaa about how the Aim-9L won the war it should be noted that all kills made with it were within the engagement envelope of the 9G.
                        Last edited by Fedaykin; 11th July 2010, 12:38.
                        Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                        Comment

                        • Obi Wan Russell
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Oct 2006
                          • 522

                          Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                          Splitting hairs I know but they carried Aim-9G as well left over from the Phantom days.

                          Actually after all the broohaa about how the Aim-9L won the war it should be noted that all kills made with it were within the engagement envelope of the 9G.
                          Agreed. Had the -9L not been available, the SHARs would in all probability have scored just as many kills. The FAA pilots were trained on the -9G and knew it's envelope well, many having come from the Phantom FG1 during the 70s (the SHAR pool of pilots in 82 was made up of a mix of ex- Phantom pilots, ex- Buccanner pilots, some new recruits and a handful of RAF Harrier pilots on loan), and in combat pilots rely on their training. There was insufficient time to retrain the pilots to the new expnded engagement envelope beyond making them aware of it. The best way to engage an enemy aircraft in combat is from behind anyway (so he doesn't see you!) and all the talk of 'Viffing' to gain the advantage was just press hype.
                          "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

                          Comment

                          • Witcha
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 1241

                            Thinking about it, I find the practicality of pair of 70,000t supercarriers for the Royal Navy a little dubious. The UK is unlikely to ever fight a conflict on its own(read: without the US) that requires it to have that much airpower at sea. And the tradeoff of having only one carrier battle-group at sea at any given time is not worth the increase. The Royal Navy would have been better off with 3-4 smaller(30,000-40,000t) carriers. It would have given much greater versatility for a similar cost and wartime capability.

                            Comment

                            • swerve
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2005
                              • 13612

                              Please read the thread. This has been discussed, at endless length.

                              To summarise:

                              The RN spent a long time modelling ship size against aircraft size, sortie rates, etc. It had access to a vast amount of data, from its own operations, the French navy, & the USN. It concluded that two largish carriers were better than three smaller ones, in terms of bang for the buck & operational effectiveness. Smaller carriers cost more per ton, both to build & to operate, & are less effective per ton. The argument for smaller carriers is dispersal of risk, & for three vs two, that isn't a strong enough argument. It is valid when the choice is one large vs two small, but that wasn't the option the RN was facing.
                              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                              Justinian

                              Comment

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

                                What Swerve said.

                                3-4 smaller carriers would have given less band and more buck.

                                Plus it's been a hard enough slog trying to get enough support for 2 larger carriers which would be more economical to build and run, how difficult do you think it would of been to get it for 3 carriers built at higher cost but less utility? or worse 4! one greater than we had for the entire second half of the Cold War?

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                  The Sea Harriers we had in 1982 could only use Sidewinder (AIM-9L), so had no better missiles than the Harrier GR9. They did have a radar, which the GR9 lacks.
                                  Yeah. But it was also 1982 and Argies lacked a long-range air to air missile as well as the Sea Harriers did, luckily. Had they had a good Beyond Visual Range missile, it would have been a nightmare.
                                  On the other hand, had the Sea Harriers had AMRAAMS, the UK wouldn't have lost so many ships, most likely.

                                  It was a shame to put off the Sea Harrier, and the Royal Navy would greatly feel their absence if a crisis was to sparkle, because attempting to provide air defence with radarless GR9 and short-range Asraam missiles would be an epic pain in the ass. The Asraam is awesome for self defence and duel, but seriously. There would be no way to cover a battlegroup at sea with Asraams.
                                  "Ghost Force" of Patrick Robinson is a book about a second Falkland war scenario in which the RN gets humiliated. Sad reading, and admittedly exagerated in some assumptions, but we can't ignore the fact that without Sea Harriers the fleet is very vulnerable from the sky. What's worse, is that the book is a few years old already, and it is higly critical against the constant shrinking of the navy... But still, the numbers of submarines and ships presented as "critically low" in the novel are actually higher than the current, real lows that the RN reached!
                                  In SSN, in particular... if the RN is very lucky, it will get 7 Astutes. But it would still mean dropping from 12 to 7 in a decade. When Labour took power, the SSN were 12, then 10, and now shrinking even more.

                                  As to Type 45, 6 are the very minimum needed, since the RN got less hulls than it asked for, but it is still required to have 5 destroyers at sea on a continuous base. 5 ships at sea out of 6 hulls is EXTREMELY ambitious a goal.
                                  And the carriers are not the only ships requiring excort and cover either. I had sincerely hoped that 8 Daring-class would have been built, until the very end... But for sure, with less than six, the RN could do very little.
                                  "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

                                  • harryRIEDL
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2006
                                    • 375

                                    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                    The performances required to the planes and the conditions set for the use of the F35 were probably different: US Marines plan to use it in squadrons of a certain consistence, the RN of another.
                                    The profile of mission is also assumed different. That would explain the difference: the RN will have the F35 grouped in squadrons of as little as 9 or up to 12 F35 each, it seems, while the Marines use larger squadrons. That would explain the difference in sortie rate.
                                    I can't come up with an explanation for the logistic footprint, however... i have to admit that it surprises me that the UK footprint is larger.

                                    On another note, i was very relieved to learn that MBDA was autonomously reshaping the Meteor's wings to make it fit in the weapons bays of the F35. The MOD dropped the requirement for saving money, and that could have been a huge problem.

                                    After all, the F35 is needed to replace Sea Harrier, too... the loss of a true fighter with long-range missiles is the only huge flaw that the current navy has on the RN that re-took the Falklands.
                                    It would be nuts, now, to face the Argies with no Sea Harriers and no AMRAAMs.
                                    And since the UK is gonna move on from AMRAAM to Meteor, the F35 MUST be able to use them. And from Stealth config, into the weapons bay, to start with.
                                    An explanation for the larger footprint can be explained by the more roles it will be required as the USMC will be likely to be only really using it for CAS and and air defense so not as many different systems will be used while the RN will be using it for everything from Deep strike to CAP and CAS so will need a wider weapon set such as Storm Shadow, Meteor,SPEAR cap2/3, ect while the USMC will have a much smaller set of weapons.

                                    Another idea is that since its been a very long time since the RN had to do big ship ops its part of a built in learning curve by allowing more resores and less sorties due to inexperience
                                    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

                                    • pjhydro
                                      Rank 4 Registered User
                                      • Apr 2009
                                      • 886

                                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                      It was a shame to put off the Sea Harrier, and the Royal Navy would greatly feel their absence if a crisis was to sparkle, because attempting to provide air defence with radarless GR9 and short-range Asraam missiles would be an epic pain in the ass. The Asraam is awesome for self defence and duel, but seriously. There would be no way to cover a battlegroup at sea with Asraams.
                                      "Ghost Force" of Patrick Robinson is a book about a second Falkland war scenario in which the RN gets humiliated. Sad reading, and admittedly exagerated in some assumptions, but we can't ignore the fact that without Sea Harriers the fleet is very vulnerable from the sky. What's worse, is that the book is a few years old already, and it is higly critical against the constant shrinking of the navy... But still, the numbers of submarines and ships presented as "critically low" in the novel are actually higher than the current, real lows that the RN reached!
                                      .

                                      I'm going to disagree with you and Patrick Robinson about how a "new Falklands" would turn out. The current air group that would be taken to sea I would argue is better than the one in 1982. The Harrier GR9/Seaking ASaC 7 combo would do better in the same scrap than the SHAR FRS1 only air group. The only advantage the SHAR has is a tiny non-look down radar. The GR9 carries more stores, has better endurance/range and other than the radar is fitted with far superior avionics and when tied up with an AEW system as good as ASaC7 there is no contest. In fact a task group going south today would have so much more going for it, kit that those in 1982 could only dream of, a couple of minutes thought has given me....
                                      - ASaC 7, when its not spotting raids hundred of miles away, its mapping enemy troop positions.
                                      - Harrier Gr9, more range, more missiles, longer CAPs further from the fleet...
                                      - TLAM, absolute battle winner in that scenario, forget Vulcan.
                                      - A dedicated Helicopter assault carrier, no yomping.
                                      - 6 LPD, more kit and vehicles landed more swiftly (no Galahad etc)
                                      - CIWS Phalanx/Goalkeeper/VL Seawolf, turkey shoot in San Carlos.
                                      - Harpoon, the range of leathality around the task group massively increased.
                                      - GPS guided munitions, accurate 24hr CAS, now reimagine Goose Green, Longdon etc.
                                      - Merlin HM1, the flying frigate, an MPA with rotors.
                                      -Type 2050 sonar, ok lots of dead dolphins but lots of dead subs too.

                                      There is more, but basically I think people need to stop sweating so much, time and technology has moved on.

                                      Comment

                                      • Stryker73
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2010
                                        • 274

                                        Don't worry about whether 6 small carriers or 2 large ones are better - apparently our development minister thinks we should be ditching the carriers so we can send 2/3rds of Africans to school !
                                        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Africans.html

                                        I'd like to see Liam Fox's face when he hears about this report which seemingly comes from an uniformed South African journalist.

                                        Comment

                                        • Fedaykin
                                          Fueled by Tea
                                          • Dec 2005
                                          • 5295

                                          A reporter in South Africa doing an opportunistic ill researched piece based on a statement from a junior minister.

                                          Contract is for two carriers, if it was cancelled now whilst in build there wouldn't be any money for African education as it would be going on paying penalty fees to the carrier alliance. It would also as has been pointed out many times decimate whats left of British shipbuilding.
                                          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X