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
  • MisterQ
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2008
    • 475

    My mistake

    Comment

    • Frosty
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jan 2008
      • 334

      Ok so the first carrier will not enter service until 2019-20 so yes there is time to redesign QE it doesn't mention which carrier will be in service first or which one will be fitted with CATOBAR first. It also states that a decision will be made in 2015 with what to do with the second carrier either selling it or having it on extended readiness. I think I'm going to cry when I see the costs or redesigning the CVF's for CATOBAR I know they had plenty of flexibility in their design for this but it was intended for a mid life refit not from commission probably going to cost an extra billion and no one even knows if EMALS will work correctly.

      We will be operating LPH only for the next 10 years and only one of them either Ocean or Invincible depending on what's cheapest. I guess this doesn't really matter because they are getting rid of the harriers anyway so no aircover and of course Ark Royal is getting the axe. Also a bay class is being decommissioned well that had a long service life didn't it.

      Looks like the Type 22 will be phased out as the remaining Type 45 enter service with a maximum frigate+destroyer force of 19 which is the 13 T23 and 6 T45.

      T26 will replace the T23 starting after 2020 hopefully 1 for 1 but I doubt that we will get that.

      MCM fleet to be 14 ships and once the current Hunt and Sandown class need replacing they will be replaced by a ship that can perform the MCM role, survey role and offshore patrol.

      Oceanographic survey vessel and an Arctic Ice patrol ship so looks like endurance is being replaced or repaired.

      Good news is that all 7 Astute's will be built

      Comment

      • Bager1968
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2005
        • 3635

        Originally posted by Frosty View Post
        and no one even knows if EMALS will work correctly.
        Well, EMALS is due to be installed in CVN-78 Ford by 2015, so we will know soon thereafter (planned commissioning date is still in 2015, but may slip to 2016)... however all components have passed their land-based tests, and full-scale testing of a completed land-based system has begun... including launching trials for F/A-18F... so we'll have a darned good idea well before 2015.


        Originally posted by Frosty View Post
        I guess this doesn't really matter because they are getting rid of the harriers anyway so no aircover and of course Ark Royal is getting the axe.
        Well, the RN didn't really have any air-cover since March 2006, so what's the difference?

        The GR.9 Harriers, which is all that have been around the RN/UK since the FA.2 Sea Harrier retired, has no A-A radar, and the two AIM-9s they carry are purely for "self-defense", so they didn't provide "air-cover".

        The Apaches carry "self-defense AAMs" (or can, at least in the US Army versions), so they can take up the slack, eh?
        Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

        Comment

        • Frosty
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2008
          • 334

          Originally posted by Bager1968 View Post

          Well, the RN didn't really have any air-cover since March 2006, so what's the difference?

          The GR.9 Harriers, which is all that have been around the RN/UK since the FA.2 Sea Harrier retired, has no A-A radar, and the two AIM-9s they carry are purely for "self-defense", so they didn't provide "air-cover".

          The Apaches carry "self-defense AAMs" (or can, at least in the US Army versions), so they can take up the slack, eh?
          Our Apaches can't unless they have been updated since I last checked and yes I know the current Harriers have a very limited air to air capability as well as no BVR capability but at least it was something now we will have nothing.

          Comment

          • Fedaykin
            Fueled by Tea
            • Dec 2005
            • 5295

            Originally posted by swerve View Post
            Not according to the SDSR.

            It clearly says QE will be delayed to allow her to be completed as cat & trap. It also says that one carrier will be placed in extended readiness, allowing the possibility of rotation with the active carrier, or regeneration if we ever need two. Unless the 2015 review decides to sell one, of course.


            Might explain the inordinately long delay.
            Thanks for the Info Swerve, been on a business trip to Plymouth (I see the irony considering the SDSR going on at the moment) for the last two days followed by the trip to London in the car this evening for another three days of different meetings with different customers...a week in hotels oh joy! so I haven't been able to keep up with the details except for what is on Radio 4 whilst on the M4!

            Well making QE CATOBAR pushes everything cost wise to the right which makes sense for the bean counters...

            The key question is what is the Navies plan to keep core skills alive with their fighter pilots and deck personel during the hiatus?! Whilst pilots can exchange with the US Navy and Aeronavale it is a rather long gap.

            There is also another story here as well and that is the Tornado GR4 replacement. OSD for GR4 is 2025ish and whilst the RAF is all UAV at the moment I still think they will want a manned replacement at least in part. The only realistic manned solution available in 2025 will be F35 which might lead to a win win situation for Navy and RAF. If the RAF can swing F35C they get a GR4 replacement which fits into an already established logistics chain and the Navy gets the surge capacity for the second carrier.
            Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

            Comment

            • Fedaykin
              Fueled by Tea
              • Dec 2005
              • 5295

              Originally posted by Frosty View Post
              Ok so the first carrier will not enter service until 2019-20 so yes there is time to redesign QE it doesn't mention which carrier will be in service first or which one will be fitted with CATOBAR first. It also states that a decision will be made in 2015 with what to do with the second carrier either selling it or having it on extended readiness. I think I'm going to cry when I see the costs or redesigning the CVF's for CATOBAR I know they had plenty of flexibility in their design for this but it was intended for a mid life refit not from commission probably going to cost an extra billion and no one even knows if EMALS will work correctly.

              We will be operating LPH only for the next 10 years and only one of them either Ocean or Invincible depending on what's cheapest. I guess this doesn't really matter because they are getting rid of the harriers anyway so no aircover and of course Ark Royal is getting the axe. Also a bay class is being decommissioned well that had a long service life didn't it.

              Looks like the Type 22 will be phased out as the remaining Type 45 enter service with a maximum frigate+destroyer force of 19 which is the 13 T23 and 6 T45.

              T26 will replace the T23 starting after 2020 hopefully 1 for 1 but I doubt that we will get that.

              MCM fleet to be 14 ships and once the current Hunt and Sandown class need replacing they will be replaced by a ship that can perform the MCM role, survey role and offshore patrol.

              Oceanographic survey vessel and an Arctic Ice patrol ship so looks like endurance is being replaced or repaired.

              Good news is that all 7 Astute's will be built
              Certainly the Bay being retired will be sold, plenty a navy worldwide that will be eager to get a nearly new and cheap to run assault ship at a bargain price!
              Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

              Comment

              • Distiller
                Talent on Loan from God
                • Oct 2003
                • 4760

                Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post

                ...

                Well making QE CATOBAR pushes everything cost wise to the right which makes sense for the bean counters...

                ...
                Going STOBAR ski-jump for 10 years on the first carrier might save even more!

                All in all no real surprises, nothing that couldn't be predicted. Just takes longer for stubborn bureaucrats to acknowledge the obvious ...
                Actually it's not funny.

                Btw, are the CVFs now fleet carriers? Now that they'll have cats?? LOL.
                Last edited by Distiller; 20th October 2010, 04:13.
                "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  Originally posted by Frosty View Post
                  Our Apaches can't unless they have been updated since I last checked and yes I know the current Harriers have a very limited air to air capability as well as no BVR capability but at least it was something now we will have nothing.
                  They were tested even with four AA Starstreak missiles, which was cool like hell. If need arises, it is certainly possible to arm them.

                  But that wouldn't be fleet protection anyway.

                  I think I'm going to cry when I see the costs or redesigning the CVF's for CATOBAR
                  I saw a 750 millions figure for moving the carrier to CATOBAR configuration. It probably would be cheaper and faster and safer using US EMALS instead of designing UK ones... This is the classic decision i dislike and that's potentially dangerous. If Off-the-shelf buy was ever indicated for something, THIS was the case.
                  What the hell is the UK going to do with ITS OWN cats and traps...? No one else will ever buy them...

                  Certainly the Bay being retired will be sold, plenty a navy worldwide that will be eager to get a nearly new and cheap to run assault ship at a bargain price!
                  Sad but damn true.
                  Couldn't the Department of International Aid come up with a smart idea to somehow get the decommissioned Bay for itself?
                  To help Haiti it worked awesomely.
                  And it would allow to keep the damn ship available in the UK, for the UK needs at the same time.
                  After all, the Aid guys are the only ones laughing, lately. Let them be actually useful for once!
                  "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

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

                    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                    What the hell is the UK going to do with ITS OWN cats and traps...? No one else will ever buy them...
                    I really dont know about this statement it depends if we get it right and we get it right and at the right time.

                    French would probably be interested in the long run - yes they could buy US but with our new ideas of working together we might be the people to turn to. Yes they have nuke and steam cats but as we all know they place more strain on the aircraft than EMALS.

                    India - they would be really interested in this technology and buying it, US is'nt guranteed to offer it to them. It will work on a ski jump and if they can make sure that the impact on the deck is minimal i.e 0.5m then this is something that could be added to the Vikrant Carrier at a later date and allow them to take off with heavier loads and the possibility of launching a proper AEW asset.

                    Brazil - would have to be interested

                    Russia - would they be interested? Would we sell it?

                    China - non starter unless we list the ban and we arent likely to any time yet.


                    I have always wondered this as well.

                    Could EMALS be used on the F-35B - I know not designed for it but is it as simple as chaning the front gear? If you could put one EMAL on the front of a STVOL carrier wouldnt you massively reduce the fuel needed to get of the deck of the carrier and therefor allow for better range? Still coming back for a Vertical Landing? If this is possible well then who else would be interested would have to include Italy Spain Japan?

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      It will work on a ski jump
                      I don't think it will.
                      The CVF won't have a sky-jump anymore, actually. A block less to build (work possibly replaced by the larger angled-deck module, however)

                      Brazil - would have to be interested

                      Russia - would they be interested? Would we sell it?
                      Brazil has a real need for catapults of this kind...? I doubt it. In future, perhaps... but if the US sell the EMALS, less expensive as they probably will be, they are likely to buy EMALS.

                      Russia. Might be interested to a degree, but their new carriers will definitely be nuclear and they may very well keep going down the CTOBAR road like with the current Kuztnezov anyway, without catapults.

                      China. Oh, they might be really interested soon. And the UK might even sell... But they are more likely to go CTOBAR since they'll use russian CTOBAR capable SU33 or platforms closely derivated from these, at least at the beginning.

                      India: same as for China and Russia. Mig29K and Su33 should be CTOBAR, so no catapults...

                      We'll see. I just hope things work the right way.
                      "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

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

                        Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                        I don't think it will.
                        The CVF won't have a sky-jump anymore, actually. A block less to build (work possibly replaced by the larger angled-deck module, however)

                        India: same as for China and Russia. Mig29K and Su33 should be CTOBAR, so no catapults...

                        We'll see. I just hope things work the right way.
                        Yes EMALS do work on ski jumps and I wasnt talking about the UK using them with Ski Jumps given the fact they are losing the ski jump.

                        I was wondering out loud if one could be incorporated into a STVOL carrier such as Juan Carlos in order to increase the range of the F-35B by removing the need to use the lift fan for take off. And if by looking at this we might open the possibility of Spain and Italy and even Australia and Japan being interested.

                        Yes America might finnish first and might be cheap but the UK could develop an equally good system that makes people consider their purchase.

                        Comment

                        • swerve
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2005
                          • 13612

                          Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                          Certainly the Bay being retired will be sold, plenty a navy worldwide that will be eager to get a nearly new and cheap to run assault ship at a bargain price!
                          Lemme see . . .

                          Australia
                          Brazil
                          India
                          Malaysia (perfect replacement for their burnt LST)
                          Probably others
                          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 Frosty View Post
                            Ok so the first carrier will not enter service until 2019-20 so yes there is time to redesign QE it doesn't mention which carrier will be in service first or which one will be fitted with CATOBAR first.
                            Page 23
                            As currently designed, the Queen Elizabeth will not be fully interoperable with key allies, since their naval jets could not land on it. Pursuit of closer partnership is a core strategic principle for the Strategic Defence and Security Review because it is clear that the UK will in most circumstances act militarily as part of a wider coalition. We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020.
                            Definitely QE. PoW isn't mentioned by name, but since the ISDs are 2016 for QE & 2018 for PoW, it's clear.

                            Presumably, as already suggested, a decision on whether to complete PoW with cats is supposed to be taken in 2015.
                            Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                            Justinian

                            Comment

                            • Geoff_B
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jul 2010
                              • 507

                              Lieger

                              There isn't really an Angled deck module as the CVF is built with sponsons both sides. The only extra bits are likely to be a round off over the stern in angled to match the angled landing deck, an extention at the fwd end of the port side sponson to maintain the full width of the landing area a little further and an exteneded sponson platform for the landing sight.

                              Of course the flight deck will need to be fitted for the catapults and wires together with their associated machinery and extra engine to provide the power.

                              The Angled flight deck mods will also reqire a revision to the distribution of the weaponry as the extensions go where we currently have light gun positions and i suppose the port side fwd Phalanx may need to be relocated from the fwd egde of the sponson as aircraft will be taking off or bolting directly over if. The CGI artwork of the PA2 gives a clue.

                              The ACC and BAE and Thales are going to be busy not oonly with the revised design but also the CGI and promo videos to illustrate the new revised format the carriers are taking.

                              Comment

                              • Liger30
                                Armed Forces supporter
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 901

                                No, it is not a module in itself, but some of the currently envisaged modules are going to be built differently and the ship will be considerably heavier as well.
                                PA2 was expected to be over 70.000 tons. CVF, even modified, won't change THAT much, (PA2, after all, planned STEAM cats and Sylver Aster 15 missile system too, and that's all weight) but quite some things will change, there's no doubt on this.

                                This was the plan for PA2:
                                It's expected (late 2006) that PA2/CVF FR will carry a 40 aircraft air group comprising up to 32 Rafale combat aircraft, plus Hawkeye surveillance aircraft and NH90 helicopters. T

                                The ship will be fitted with two American manufactured C13-2 steam catapults - 90 metres long (nominal power stroke of 309.7 feet) and able to launch aircraft at over 150 knots. The catapults will be powered by an auxiliary steam generating plant; the launch rate will be one one aircraft every 30 seconds - an Alpha Strike of 24 aircraft in 12 minutes. In order to land returning aircraft, the ship will also have a mark 7 Mod 4 3-wire arresting gear and barricade.
                                The one line i evidenced is interesting because probably the UK carrier will have a similar Sortie Rate Generation as well, perhaps a bit higher thanks to the more effective cats, but most likely on those levels anyway.


                                This image is not the best ever, but it shows a bit of the difference we can expect to see from the CVF we were by now used to know to the one that will actually be.


                                Thanks as always to Richard's Beedall Navy Matters.
                                Last edited by Liger30; 20th October 2010, 13:47.
                                "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

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

                                  I always rather liked this picture of the Thales design for CVF

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    The islands' designs are outdated, but the rest is most likely quite correct, and resemblant of how the carriers will look like.

                                    But is that a Phalanx roughly halfway down the flank of the ship, just under the level of the flight deck...?
                                    Weird position, unless this design called for more than 4 Phalanx guns in various spots around the ship.
                                    This is unlikely to happen.

                                    The CVF will have 3, max 4 Phalanx guns at the very 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

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

                                      Prefer my own modification though it's not based on the latest design: The traditional British red and white centreline looks so much better than the US yellow and white everyone else uses!:diablo:
                                      Last edited by Obi Wan Russell; 7th April 2013, 11:36.
                                      "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

                                      Comment

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

                                        You can count 11 jets on the top there I think.

                                        I know you will all slate me for this, but half of the work done by Carriers is their image. You seen a CVN and you think crap thats a lot of planes, why would you mess with that. Can we get some dumy F-35's to make the deck look a bit more formidable!!

                                        Comment

                                        • philbob
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2008
                                          • 308

                                          Does anyone know if the CVF has a magazine for nuclear weapons?

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X