Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Distiller
    Talent on Loan from God
    • Oct 2003
    • 4760

    With the switch to cats the CVF's deck layout is really suboptimal. My criticism towards CdG, of being unable to perform simultaneous launch and recovery, is valid for CVF also. Even more so, cause we're dealing with 65.000ts ships here. All the flight ops on CVF will require extensive deck maneuvering, crossing the deck multiple times, cause literally all the positions are the wrong way round.

    Sigh .... In the end a ship 50% larger than a 27C will have only 50% of the latter's fighting power. The manpower advantage comes not from layout and design, but from unrelated technological advances like GT-electric propulsion and computer networks.
    "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

    Comment

    • obligatory
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2008
      • 7043

      For everyone else that got lost:
      27C refers to an upgraded US Essex class Carrier from WW2

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCB-27

      Comment

      • Geoff_B
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2010
        • 507

        Originally posted by philbob View Post
        Does anyone know if the CVF has a magazine for nuclear weapons?
        Why would it as we disposed of tactical Nukes back in 1997, and they will only focus on strategic weapons ay the moment.

        Comment

        • ppp
          ppp
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2008
          • 1331

          Originally posted by philbob View Post
          Does anyone know if the CVF has a magazine for nuclear weapons?
          Shouldn't need to do anything more than keep them separate from the other bombs. The issue with the nukes is more one of would the UK be willing to let France put nukes onboard, and the answer is probably no, given UK policy on deployment of tactical nukes on surface ships.

          Comment

          • Geoff_B
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jul 2010
            • 507

            Originally posted by Distiller View Post
            With the switch to cats the CVF's deck layout is really suboptimal. My criticism towards CdG, of being unable to perform simultaneous launch and recovery, is valid for CVF also. Even more so, cause we're dealing with 65.000ts ships here. All the flight ops on CVF will require extensive deck maneuvering, crossing the deck multiple times, cause literally all the positions are the wrong way round.

            Sigh .... In the end a ship 50% larger than a 27C will have only 50% of the latter's fighting power. The manpower advantage comes not from layout and design, but from unrelated technological advances like GT-electric propulsion and computer networks.
            Actually the original 300m Thales design initially selected had longer bows and hanger as this is where the 20m was removed from the design. Unfortunately the shortening of the hull leads to the fwd catapult fouling the landing area and the length of the cat means it couldn't be fitted on the starbord side as it would start wher the Island is currently located.

            Utterly meaningless trying to compare a CVF with an Essex, the aircraft and and ships are generations apart.

            Comment

            • Bager1968
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2005
              • 3635

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              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.
              India is planning for their second "home-built" carrier to be "cat & trap".

              Look at the bottom of this entry (Yes, it's Wiki... but follow the reference links at the bottom for more reliable sources):
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikrant...rcraft_carrier
              Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

              Comment

              • benroethig
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Aug 2010
                • 487

                Originally posted by philbob View Post
                Does anyone know if the CVF has a magazine for nuclear weapons?
                The WE.177 free fall bomb was retired years ago. Unlike the us and French militaries, the UK no longer has an airborne tactical nuclear capability, only strategic capability aboard trident subs.

                Comment

                • ppp
                  ppp
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2008
                  • 1331

                  Originally posted by benroethig View Post
                  The WE.177 free fall bomb was retired years ago. Unlike the us and French militaries, the UK no longer has an airborne tactical nuclear capability, only strategic capability aboard trident subs.
                  Yes, I'm fully aware of that and the entire history of our nuclear capabilities, but I, unlike you it seems, am capable of giving an answer to a question that was asked, not to the question you think should have been asked. His question, was most likely based on the fact that, in the even Britain and France were to jointly operate the carrier as has been speculated in the literature and in government, then would there be a place for the nuclear weapons onboard. My answer to this was that it should be possible physically in that it would require only a separate area for the weapons, but would be contrary to British policy

                  Since you felt it appropriate to nit-pic at my post, I shall do the same with yours. You state that Britain's Vanguard class submarines only provide a strategic capability, which is actually incorrect, as the the force will also use single warhead missiles with the option of a lower explosive yield, as a tactical capability.

                  Comment

                  • 90inFIRST
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Oct 2008
                    • 240

                    Originally posted by ppp View Post
                    Yes, I'm fully aware of that and the entire history of our nuclear capabilities, but I, unlike you it seems, am capable of giving an answer to a question that was asked, not to the question you think should have been asked. His question, was most likely based on the fact that, in the even Britain and France were to jointly operate the carrier as has been speculated in the literature and in government, then would there be a place for the nuclear weapons onboard. My answer to this was that it should be possible physically in that it would require only a separate area for the weapons, but would be contrary to British policy

                    Since you felt it appropriate to nit-pic at my post, I shall do the same with yours. You state that Britain's Vanguard class submarines only provide a strategic capability, which is actually incorrect, as the the force will also use single warhead missiles with the option of a lower explosive yield, as a tactical capability.
                    Sealord is that you!!!!

                    Comment

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

                      Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post

                      ...

                      Utterly meaningless trying to compare a CVF with an Essex, the aircraft and and ships are generations apart.
                      And??

                      Ok, let's put an identical number of aircraft on Sao Paulo and the first CVF and let's do a parallel deployment and figure out which ship is better!
                      "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

                      Comment

                      • 90inFIRST
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Oct 2008
                        • 240

                        Question

                        In service date of 2019-20 presumably means operating ship with a minimum functioning air group.

                        If this is so how soon does the ship need to be floated out to finish fitting out and how long will contractors trials, commisioning and working up with an air group take?

                        How soon do we need to be purchasing F35's to get enough units to allow the ship to be considered operational?

                        Comment

                        • ppp
                          ppp
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jul 2008
                          • 1331

                          Originally posted by 90inFIRST View Post
                          Sealord is that you!!!!
                          Who is Sealord? Then I can decide whether it would be good for me to be him or not

                          Comment

                          • Liger30
                            Armed Forces supporter
                            • Jul 2010
                            • 901

                            Essentially, it comes down to having 12 operative F35C and, say, 18 crews fully trained, plus of course groundcrews prepared for carrier ops.

                            This was available time ago, when the "big buy of 138 planes" was still the plan. Also, the dates have most likely changed, but still it can be interesting:

                            The following dates are best estimates based on current information in the public domain:

                            * January 2009: UK places order for 2 or 3 Operational Test and Evaluation JSF's
                            * 2012: First UK aircraft delivery
                            * 2013: Production order placed
                            * 2017: JCA In-Service-Date
                            (limited initial operational capability IOC with about 8 aircraft).
                            * 2019-20: The Harrier is taken out of service, about 50 years after entering service on April 1, 1969! [Sadly, this will not be the case]
                            * 2020: First F-35B equipped JCA squadron operationally deployed on a CVF
                            * c.2027: JCA deliveries complete
                            Curious how, now that i read it carefully, a full squadron was not planned to be carrier-ready before 2020 even before the last SDSR!

                            USN F35C IOC has been moved in march this year to 2016. Always in 2016 is planned the first deployment on a carrier.

                            A US DOD planning document dated November 2001 showed year by year how the UK F-35 aircraft would be delivered (orders would need to be placed approximately two years earlier), divided into 4 categories of test, training, operations and attrition.
                            Test now would be the 3 planes already on order and planned to arrive in 2012. Maybe it slip forwards if the order is switched from 3 F35B to F35C? Ideally no, but it is possible. The MOD itself may ask for it to save money in the short term, but LM would oppose it because it would slow down the test schedule and cause a mess.

                            When the IOC was planned in 2012, the MOD planned to buy:

                            2 Test planes in 2009
                            4 x Training and 2 x Operational planes in 2010
                            8 x Operations in 2011
                            4 x Training + 6 x Operations in 2012
                            4 + 8 in 2013
                            2 + 10 in 2014
                            2 + 10 in 2015
                            4 x Operation in 2016

                            with further buy of planes up to 2024, for a total of 84 additional airframes to put in long-term storage and cover attrition.
                            Plan was for 4 Squadrons of 12 planes and 18 pilots each, plus a 16-strong OCU.
                            Attrition aircraft would replace those lost in squadron service and any excess would go into long term storage. Squadron aircraft would be cycled through storage to ensure the fleet accumulated hours evenly across airframes.

                            US DOD reports that orders would need to be placed approximately two years earlier. Order in 2013, get the planes in 2015, a further two years to reach IOC with 8 planes.
                            If IOC for UK is now to be expected in 2019, a firm order for the first F35C is to be placed, say, in 2015.
                            It may be the next SDSR that makes the first firm order for F35C planes.

                            More aggressive yearly timeline for acquiring planes, and the decision to train pilots with the USN navy instead of creating a UK OCU might make it possible to have a full squadron ready in 2020, with 2 more to form in the following 2/3 years.
                            UK pilots are already training on F18 in the US right now. The US plan to have a school for allied pilots of F35, and the UK's best choice would be to join that school, paying some obviously, eventually even buying a little number of airplanes to use for training, but still saving over what it would cost to:
                            -Build a training facility on land for carrier-ops training, something the UK has not by so many years by now
                            -Create and run a full OCU squadron (aka either one operative squadron less or more planes to be bought)

                            The UK JCA force might then consist of 3 x 12 = 36 operative planes, 18 x 3 pilots = 54 pilots and N spare airframes, depending on how many are bought complexively.
                            24 spare airframes if 60 are bought... and it looks like an acceptable figure for a 36 strong fleet, goddamnit, almost a 1 to 1 rate.
                            The "rosy days" plan wanted more than a 1 to 1 rate, but that sincerely looks like a waste, and a big one. It would virtually double the life of the fleet with rotation of airframes in service, perhaps, but, seriously! 64 operative fighters included the OCU and 84 storaged airframes??? It should be the opposite, if you ask me.

                            A bunch more spare airframes could always be bought well later on, since F35 building is going to be pretty damn long and the factory will be still available to take on orders.

                            Data as always from Navy Matters - http://navy-matters.beedall.com/jca1-2.htm
                            "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

                            • Trident
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2004
                              • 3970

                              Originally posted by Distiller View Post
                              With the switch to cats the CVF's deck layout is really suboptimal. My criticism towards CdG, of being unable to perform simultaneous launch and recovery, is valid for CVF also. Even more so, cause we're dealing with 65.000ts ships here. All the flight ops on CVF will require extensive deck maneuvering, crossing the deck multiple times, cause literally all the positions are the wrong way round.
                              Attached is a quick and crude photoshop of this original deck layout which I believe is representative in its overall dimensions of the ship as it is actually being built:

                              http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfi...-delta-av1.jpg

                              As you can see, it should be possible (if only just) to reposition the bow catapult in such a way that:

                              - Hawkeyes can be launched from it, although this precludes landing operations

                              - F-35Cs can take off without impeding simultaneous recoveries.

                              Since E-2 launches will be relatively few and far between this may be an acceptable compromise, a bigger issue could be that you lose most or all of the 7 parking positions on the bow. If you were prepared to accept that Hawkeye ops can only be conducted from the waist cat, the one in the bows could perhaps be shifted even further starboard which would restore some of the parking capacity.
                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by Trident; 22nd October 2010, 00:31. Reason: Fixed mistake in last sentence
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • ppp
                                ppp
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2008
                                • 1331

                                Originally posted by Trident View Post
                                Attached is a quick and crude photoshop of this original deck layout which I believe is representative in its overall dimensions of the ship as it is actually being built:

                                http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfi...-delta-av1.jpg

                                As you can see, it should be possible (if only just) to reposition the bow catapult in such a way that:

                                - Hawkeyes can be launched from it, although this precludes landing operations

                                - F-35Cs can take off without impeding simultaneous recoveries.

                                Since E-2 launches will be relatively few and far between this may be an acceptable compromise, a bigger issue could be that you lose most or all of the 7 parking positions on the bow. If you were prepared to accept that Hawkeye ops can only be conducted from the waist cat, the latter could perhaps be shifted even further starboard which would restore some of the parking capacity.
                                We need to consider the UCAVs or UAVs that may also fly off them at some point too, and these are more likely to have long wings. Again though, a single catapult would be sufficient for such aircraft, particularly the UAVs, as they may be in the air for quite long periods (12+ hours).

                                Comment

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

                                  Simltaneous launch and recovery is of limited value to be honest.The RN has never possessed a carrier with this capability, and managed very well without it. I asked a friend of mine who served on 5 USN carriers during th 70s and 80s and he said it was only ever practiced during inspections, never operationally. Like the RN's conventional CV force, normal practice was to lauch a package of aircraft, then switch to recovery, then respot the deck ready for the next package and so on. Alpha strikes were and are rare, and clearing a deck from launch stations to recovery stations takes a well trained crew only a few minutes. If an aircraft inbound to the carrier develops a problem requiring recovery the deck will usually get those minutes notice in order to rig the Barricade anyway. For CVF, simlytaneous launch and recovery really isn't worth worrying about.
                                  "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

                                  Comment

                                  • 90inFIRST
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Oct 2008
                                    • 240

                                    [QUOTE=ppp;1654103]Who is Sealord? Then I can decide whether it would be good for me to be him or not [/QUOTE

                                    Dude sealord lawrence was banned some years ago, he had an acidic side to him/her but was also was highly knowledgable. I'm sure he still keeps an eye on this site. My reference was to your slightly argumentitive side that I was enjoying. I hope you take no offence to my coment. I used to post more frequently but 50 hours at work a week, three young children, an active sportshobby and my own web site kill my ability to join Liger

                                    Comment

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

                                      Originally posted by Distiller View Post
                                      With the switch to cats the CVF's deck layout is really suboptimal. My criticism towards CdG, of being unable to perform simultaneous launch and recovery, is valid for CVF also. Even more so, cause we're dealing with 65.000ts ships here. All the flight ops on CVF will require extensive deck maneuvering, crossing the deck multiple times, cause literally all the positions are the wrong way round..
                                      Ahhhh, the flow... the FLOW, says he! (Sorry, couldn't resist that, we both must sound like broken records )

                                      Would be interesting to compare sortie generation rates of CVF vs. CVV. That would settle our debate on flow pretty nicely since they're close to the same size. I gather you'd see CVV's deck layout as close to ideal.

                                      Originally posted by Distiller View Post
                                      Sigh .... In the end a ship 50% larger than a 27C will have only 50% of the latter's fighting power. The manpower advantage comes not from layout and design, but from unrelated technological advances like GT-electric propulsion and computer networks.
                                      Hardly. The modernized Essexes couldn't match Charles de Gaulle, let alone CVF. You know as well as I do that you can't extrapolate from aircraft numbers then and now. You have to look at sortie generation, aircraft size, ordnance & aviation fuel storage...

                                      Comment

                                      • philbob
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Mar 2008
                                        • 308

                                        Originally posted by benroethig View Post
                                        The WE.177 free fall bomb was retired years ago. Unlike the us and French militaries, the UK no longer has an airborne tactical nuclear capability, only strategic capability aboard trident subs.
                                        thanks just wondering

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13612

                                          I have spoken to the MoD Press Office today. I was told that -

                                          Contrary to rumour, Queen Elizabeth will not enter service as an LPH in 2016. Construction will be delayed, & she will be held back until Prince of Wales is complete, but I was not given a date for when she will be completed. The plan to complete her on schedule for use as an LPH is a proposal that was considered, but rejected before the SDSR was published.

                                          Prince of Wales & Queen Elizabeth will both, on current plans, be ready for service in 2020.

                                          It has not been definitely decided whether to complete both, or one (& if so which) with cat & trap (& the pleasant voiced, young-sounding woman who I spoke to said 'cat & trap'..

                                          No decision has been made on which ship will be the active carrier, & which will be placed in reserve.
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X