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
  • nocutstoRAF
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • May 2010
    • 954

    Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
    In many ways the design is secondary. What do you want to achieve? What is the most cost (not necessarily just money) effective way to get there?

    In terms of warfare itself effects based ideas are about looking at the simplist way to achieve your goal with the least treasure/blood/damage.
    1) I imagine that what the RN wants is a multi-role ship which does everything including major warfighting and as cheap as possible - they are wed to the combination of high tech surface vessel carrying one, possibly two helicopters. Personally I think that a more cost effective ways but the stories in the press have made it clear that the RN is reluctant to spend money on ships that are good for all the non-warfighting bits but not major surface combatants - one article called them "snatch frigates", and I am not sure at the other end of the spectrum how cheap a through-deck "cruiser" would be with say 4 helicopter landing spots, half decent self-defence capabilities and two divets for combat boats.

    I think Liger is hinting in his post that we should not be swayed by the Think Defence article that what was recently posted which suggested minor surface combatants based on modified Platform Supply Vessels http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/06/fdr-littoral-4/

    2) Technically are we not doing this already to some extent with the aid? - we already target and condition our aid, such as insisting on good governance. On top of this we are now involving NSC in decisions on where we spend aid.
    If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

    Comment

    • Liger30
      Armed Forces supporter
      • Jul 2010
      • 901

      No, i was referring to the far more radical and ultimately unrealistic suggestions Lewis Page makes, actually.
      When one goes as far as to call frigates "pointless", he's got problems.
      I'm firmly convinced something in his navy career frustrated him and made him bitter about the navy, and most evidently about the frigate force.
      "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

      • nocutstoRAF
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2010
        • 954

        Sorry - I will go google Lewis Page's web-site. I take it that if you locked Sir Richard Dannatt and Lewis Page in a room together things would be bloody
        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

        Comment

        • RVFHarrier
          Rank 3 Registered User
          • May 2010
          • 105

          From a wide range of news outlets, the overwhelming view of the press seems to be that the latest NSC meeting has all but confirmed that both carriers will be built. Here's a snippit of one of them:

          Originally posted by The Daily Mail
          Navy wins battle for two new aircraft carriers... but one will be mothballed to reduce costs
          Full story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz11jmo8tyB

          The 'mothballing' of one seems awfully similar to what was originally invisaged anyway, to me. Wasn't the original plan for only one to actually be active at any one time and for them to rotate? Even if it wasn't the original plan, the idea is far from new. Anyway, this is fantastic news and, although as yet unconfirmed until the actual results of the SDSR come through, it seems as though both hulls will touch water.

          Edit: Maybe this should have gone in the UK Defence Review thread, not sure. This seems more fitting though given it's dedicated to CVF.
          Last edited by RVFHarrier; 8th October 2010, 04:26.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            The idea was to rotate the hulls anyway, yes.
            But i suspect the mothballing will mean putting PoW in a dock and keep it there even when QE is out for refit, unless a war starts and requires the second carrier to urgently be pulled out.
            Which would take weeks at best, probably.

            If we are a little bit more lucky, PoW will be used with Marines and helos instead, with smaller crew and navy reservists on board whenever possible, and be a bit more readily available to act as strike carrier as well to replace her sister in duty tours.

            What worries me, is how much the RN is asked to pay for the budget cuts. I had to read this and i nearly had a heart-attack to say the very least:
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-carriers.html

            One truth in particular horrifies me: the UK is going to gain NOTHING from the carriers. Apparently, now that decent aircraft carriers are about to come online to give air power projection at sea, the amphibious ships and the Marines themselves are going to be lost, making the whole "power projection" thing a politic lie.
            For 7 years the UK's had a fantastic Amphibious force, but lacking in air support.
            Now we'll possibly have air support (still have to see; it depends on how many F35 actually are bought!) but we are going to lose the amphibious force.

            What's worse is that the UK was better off with the amphibs than with a carrier with no planes.
            Arguably, the amphibious task group is worth even a carrier with planes.
            Seriously, power projection requires the carriers AND the capability to land credible forces in an area of choice. That was the sense of the Navy's part of the SDR 1998, and the conclusions of that review in this sense, regardless of the lies of the current SDSR, are unassailable.
            The carriers were to be the cornerstone of the british defence policy. They had to support and protect missions abroad, including amphibious assaults. They had to be escorted by Type 45 and frigates. And supported by MARS.
            Now it is all going to be ripped apart, leaving the navy in a mess without strategy, without coherence, and without balance.

            We are rowing full force towards the worst decision EVER: build carriers without planes as a massive job-creating measure, and just because there's no way to escape the penalties for cancellation of the contract.
            And to pay for two beautiful but deemed to impotence carriers, we lose all the rest.

            I have no words. It is worse than a horror movie. FAR worse.
            Last edited by Liger30; 8th October 2010, 07:40.
            "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

            • Anixtu
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2008
              • 92

              Originally posted by Bomberboy View Post
              What this really shows is that there aint enough appropriate RN vessels to conduct the job that they need to do in the first place.
              Nothing to do with it having to be a platform for helos.
              The fact they've got to employ a ruddy great RFA and mish mash ensemble to carry out these tasks speaks volumes...
              You assume that Fort Victoria is there instead of the usual frigate deployments rather than in addition to them. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

              Originally posted by swerve View Post
              Oh, & she'll be replenishing warships while she's out there. Supply ships help the anti-piracy flotilla operate more effectively (less time wasted sailing back & forth to Mombasa or wherever), & doubling up on roles makes sense. If she's going to be there anyway, for refuelling & resupply of patrolling ships, why not use her for anti-piracy ops directly, at the same time?
              Actually per the following linked article, she isn't "there anyway" for replenishment. Current AGRT unit is Bayleaf.

              http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and...ria-heads-east

              "Boats are now stowed in every spare area of deck and although replenishment of both solids and liquids remains achievable this is no longer the primary role for this deployment."

              Comment

              • Stan hyd
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2009
                • 605

                I have no words. It is worse than a horror movie. FAR worse.
                I couldnt agree more - I am simply past words in how bad this could get. I always accepted we would never be a tier 1 navy and that the Royal Navy would never rule the waves. But serioulsy did I think it would get this bad? Never in a million years. A conservative government has cut the navy to shreds - yes Labour caused it but for heavens sake dont cut defence!!

                Comment

                • Stryker73
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jun 2010
                  • 274

                  The London Evening Standard article on the defence review thread suggest the cuts will be nothing like feared and we'll have a rolling 2 year review.

                  Comment

                  • swerve
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2005
                    • 13612

                    Originally posted by pjhydro View Post
                    2087/2050 both are attached to a hull, they move slowly and have a predictable and fixed search range. An area covered by a T23 in an hour search will be covered by two or three helicopters in minutes, who will then move on to search another area. Yes you need persistence and a base for the helicopters, but when you consider that a vessel the size of Ocean has a frigate sized crew can carry a heap of helicopters and cost 154 Million to build and by its size and volume is infinately more flexible across a range of roles then you see where I am going. (yes before you all bleat I am aware of oceans designs etc, I said an Ocean sized vessel)..
                    I see you really haven't got the idea of persistence, & have completely missed what has been said about the effectiveness of sensors.

                    How many helicopters does it take to provide 24 hour coverage? How much do those helicopters cost to buy & operate? How much fuel do they burn when on station?

                    A ship FLOATS. It doesn't need any power to stay still. It can do so as long as it has food & water for the crew, & fuel to generate power for its systems. THAT is persistence, not frequent brief visits with sonars of a fraction of the sensitivity of those a ship can carry.

                    The ship carrying a high performance sonar doesn't have to be a frigate, but it's best if it's quiet - and quieting costs money. It needs to be able to defend itself, & that means sensors, command systems, & weapons - more money, & crew. Steel is cheap, but it isn't free, & the more you have, the more power you need to push it around - and that costs money.

                    Big cheap ships have their uses (transports, for example), but they're not very good at hunting subs.

                    BTW, WW2 examples are of limited relevance nowadays. WW2 U-boats were really submersibles. They had to transit on the surface, rendering them very vulnerable to airborne surface search radar. Doesn't work nowadays. Their torpedoes were relatively short range & unguided, again making them vulnerable in ways which a modern sub isn't.
                    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                    Justinian

                    Comment

                    • pjhydro
                      Rank 4 Registered User
                      • Apr 2009
                      • 886

                      Swerve - Your mostly right and i'm not saying ships are irrelevant or useless, i'm saying there are often better ways of doing it and the asumption that a frigate is the best tool for the job is one that does not entirely stand up to scrutiny. As I think I said already, you need frigates, absolutlely, should we have a fleet of TDCs, god no. But there is a lot of people stating without argument that the RN needs lots of frigate hulls and I think the assumption that the core of a modern RN should be a fleet of ASW frigates is one that needs discussion. There are many aspects of the modern RN that could be achieved with different vehicles such as UAVs at the fraction of cost in manpower and treasure. Yes we need (and always will) the persistence of ships, but many of the RNs planning assumptions do seem predicated on which ships are good commands rather than what is useful.

                      As for WW2. Yes and no, I understand what you are saying but airpower would still be the dominant anti-sub force. The speed of search is even more critical now given the range of submarine based weapons and the speed of modern SSNs. T23 is a great ASW frigate, BUT it has a fixed search range that moves along at 15-20 knots search speed. Once located its search pattern is predictable. An MPA or Helicopter has a far greater speed of search, over a greater range with much less predictability.

                      You need both, but really the ships are there to support the aircraft, the hanger and platform is the most important part of a T23. A better ASW ship would have bigger flying facilities.

                      Comment

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        PJ

                        i'm saying there are often better ways of doing it and the asumption that a frigate is the best tool for the job is one that does not entirely stand up to scrutiny.
                        I think you fundamentally misunderstand the operational environment here. At present the threat is in the littoral not blue water. Chokepoints, shallows, shoal water etc. You cannot avoid pushing HVU's like amphibs into those waters if you expect to do anything in the way of power projection. There will always be a need for ASW escort in those areas. You can try and do that with 8000 ton DDG's carrying a pair of ASW choppers if you like but, currently, those DDG's are big and noisy. In tight waters they are not always favourite to come out ahead of the game.

                        A smaller, more nimble, quieter ship is necessary for those ops. With the DDG standing off providing sensor and aviation support and covering fires. I've long been a fan of our C1 capacity being a DDH built off the T45 design with a big aviation dept for up to 3 Merlins. That would need to be paired up though with a smaller 'inshore' hull though i.e a C2 with a fair-middlin bow sonar and, ideally, a couple of USVs towing CAPTAS NANO style arrays!.

                        At present were still a way off from that, so, a very discrete frigate is a key player in the operational scenario that the Navy is set up to undertake.

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          A type 45-based 3-Merlins DDH is potentially awesome.
                          I liked a lot the UVX destroyer that BAe did propose some time ago. It did look so cool.

                          However, regarding press reports today talking of "ditched STOVL planes for CVF, to be replaced by cheaper cat-launched fighters" (F35C), i expressed my doubts, and i've already had confirmations to my skepticness:

                          Lockheed Martin has received a $13 million contract to incorporate a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability with the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B, with the work to be performed on behalf of the UK.
                          http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ification.html

                          On 6 october, LM seems to have received the contract to look at how the F35B has to fare in the infamous Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing SRVL required to ensure the fighter is not forced to drop in the sea a couple of 500.000 dollars each Paveway IV every time it gets back to the carrier without having launched...

                          This evidently clashes with the reported "decision" to switch to EMALS and F35C.
                          Of course, since the decision was reported to have been taken yesterday or perhaps early today, it is very possible that the contract to LM, which certainly was scheduled by quite a long time already, means nothing really...

                          But i still express doubts on the report.
                          "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

                          • Geoff_B
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 507

                            If you read that article correctly the contract is actually a top up on an existing contract to develop SVRL for the UK F-35B.

                            What ever you read in the press re-STOVL/CATOBAR is just speculation, until the SDSR conclusions are released by the Govt in 10-14 days time. Therfore its business as usual untuk instructed otherwise by the powers that be and the standing order on JCA is to carry on with development with the assumption that F-35B STOVL(SVRL) is still the preferred option for JCA.

                            G

                            Comment

                            • Bomberboy
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Nov 2004
                              • 854

                              Originally posted by Anixtu View Post
                              You assume that Fort Victoria is there instead of the usual frigate deployments rather than in addition to them. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?
                              What sort of a poxy question is that.
                              My comment was not based on fact in the first place.
                              It was a response to somebody else's posting.
                              If you want to play that number, where is your evidence that it isn't?
                              in fact the link to the RN website you have given clearly is aimed at the type of 'unusual' (my terminology) deployment that they have tasked her to do as her 'PRIMARY ROLE'.

                              If it's there instead of, then it's likely (not factual and with no evidence to support my assumption, only my personal speculation which i hope will satisfy you) that there's not enough appropriate vessels available.
                              If it's there as well as, then it's likely (not factual and with no evidence to support my assumption, only my personal speculation which i hope will satisfy you) there's not enough appropriate vessels available.
                              Either way, if as I have suggested earlier in the thread that youare one of those that know everything and have the evidence to prove either of the above is incorrect or what the correct reason for her being deployed like this, then please share it with everybody.

                              On the other hand why would it be unreasonable for me to ASSUME that there are not enough appropriate vessels to do the work in the first place with all that is currently going on in the navy......which was the point of my reply.

                              Bomberboy

                              Comment

                              • Anixtu
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2008
                                • 92

                                Originally posted by Bomberboy View Post
                                What sort of a poxy question is that.
                                My comment was not based on fact in the first place.
                                It was a response to somebody else's posting.
                                If you want to play that number, where is your evidence that it isn't?
                                Easy. We typically have two frigates east of Suez. These are currently HMS Somerset and HMS Montrose. HMS Cumberland is on her way out there, presumably to relieve one of the others, I haven't checked which is due back first.

                                Conclusion: RFA Fort Victoria is not replacing a frigate east of Suez.

                                If it's there as well as, then it's likely (not factual and with no evidence to support my assumption, only my personal speculation which i hope wll satisfy you) there's not enough appropriate vessels available.
                                So, now that we have established that Fort Victoria is in addition to the usual escort, and not instead of, what vessel do you think would have been a more appropriate addition?

                                I'll help you out a little bit here, and say that I think Fort Vic's real purpose is to support something like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11250785 during the surge in pirate activity at this time of year, between the two monsoons. The task requires marines, boats, helicopters and medical facilities. What other British units can support a Merlin, numerous RHIBs, accommodate marines and have whatever Role medical facilities Fort Vic does?

                                On the other hand why would it be unreasonable for me to ASSUME that there are not enough appropriate vessels to do the work in the first place with all that is currently going on in the navy......which was the point of my reply.
                                "ASSUME". Say no more. I'm just tired of the refrain that "they've sent an RFA to do a warship's job". It's valid for Largs Bay's brief stint on APT(S), but I've yet to see another believable example.

                                Comment

                                • Liger30
                                  Armed Forces supporter
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 901

                                  Two frigates that cover roles in the gulf and off Iraq, along with minesweepers and RFA assets in support.

                                  ATALANTA against pirates off Somalia is a new standing task grown on the Navy in these years, which ideally should have been tackled by another frigate.
                                  But there's not enough frigates to be able to cover all standing commitments around the year, and so other vessels have to remedy.
                                  Even oil tankers have been used for "combat" roles lately.

                                  And, again, Fort Victoria would have been better justified if all its three hangars had been filled with choppers.
                                  Then it would have arguably been able to do more than a frigate. As it is, instead, it is replacing a warship that simply wasn't available for the role.

                                  Not even bad, until there's a ship that can validly do the job. Would be worse if there wasn't even that.
                                  "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

                                  • pjhydro
                                    Rank 4 Registered User
                                    • Apr 2009
                                    • 886

                                    Jonsey - I don't think we disagree at all actually, I think when we are talking about future fleet make ups we have the same ideas, as I said we do need frigates BUT....

                                    Comment

                                    • Geoff_B
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 507

                                      Back onto CVF, Gwylam models are currently working on producing a 1/700 resin kit of HMS Queen Elizabeth CVF due for release in the coming months. Sound be in the <100 mark which is not too bad for the material and size of model as a Resin Type 23 in the same scale is about 50.

                                      The kit will represent how the ship is currently envisaged to look based on the current information from the builders and will include F-35B & Merlin aircraft.

                                      G

                                      Comment

                                      • pilatus
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jun 2005
                                        • 742

                                        Here is a low res pic of the model.
                                        Attached Files
                                        visit www.irishairpics.com

                                        Comment

                                        • F/A-18RN
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • May 2005
                                          • 256

                                          Originally posted by pilatus View Post
                                          Here is a low res pic of the model.
                                          Not a bad model but if the MOD decide to go for a CTOL CVF will Gwylam Models modify all their CVF kits or are they too far along in construction for that? :diablo:

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X