Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • obligatory
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2008
    • 7043

    I thought QE was the lead ship

    Comment

    • Jonesy
      Neo-conversative
      • Jan 2000
      • 5097

      Originally posted by obligatory View Post
      I thought QE was the lead ship
      More importantly where do we find the dock space to build two in tandem!!!

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Won't the costs rise doing... this... not very clever-sounding procedure...?

        Also, are we to take this as the spelled end of any hope to have SOME SORT of replacement for Ocean...? First and last LPH in the Royal Navy i'm guessing, with further reduction in the amphibious and power-projection capability of the UK when she's out and nothing is built nor used to replace her?

        I put my little, fading remaining hopes on having the catapult-less carrier (i really don't see the MOD getting money to fund cat and traps on both...) used as LPH, and not as dust-collecting "reserve" (with "For Sale" signs hanging on the flanks) item.

        More importantly where do we find the dock space to build two in tandem!!!
        I'm pretty sure there aren't other docks big enough in the whole of the UK that the MOD could use to house QE.
        I'm guessing she'll be afloat, resting in the water but not completed...?
        Last edited by Liger30; 25th October 2010, 15:33.
        "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

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

          Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
          More importantly where do we find the dock space to build two in tandem!!!
          Which do we believe, the printed SDSR document or the pr (call centre) lady on the phone???

          If QE is more or less completed she would be floated out when? 2014, POW 2 years later?

          Comment

          • Fedaykin
            Fueled by Tea
            • Dec 2005
            • 5295

            hmmm my guess the vague statement from the press office is more down to the fact that BAE Systems, Thales and Babcock are in frantic meetings thrashing out the change in build strategy. As it is they have to put the brakes on fairly quick as Cammell Laird are in effect building incorrect flight deck modules now. They will have to stop that to allow redesign time, remember the CATOBAR configuration was only a proposal. My hope they will be able to streamline this work using whatever design proposals Thales put together for PA2 and the French Navy but nevertheless it throws a massive spanner in the works stopping build to allow redesign time plus reschedule a carefully planned build strategy! Proposals will also now need to be put together for the CATOBAR deck equipment, everything from the arrester gear and catapult through to extra power generation plant and landing sights (more then likely the American IFLOLS). Any American equipment will also need an export licence and I presume FMS clearance which is a formality but again adds time.
            Last edited by Fedaykin; 25th October 2010, 15:56.
            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

              The SDSR actually does not promise to use one before 2020, even as LPH. The SDSR only said:

              We will therefore install catapult and arrestor gear. This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier from 2016 to around 2020. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future. This should both ensure continuous carrier-strike availability, and reduce the overall carrier protection requirements on the rest of the fleet, releasing ships for other naval tasks such as protection of key sea-lanes, or conducting counter- piracy and narcotics operations.

              To provide further insurance against unpredictable changes in that strategic environment, our current plan is to hold one of the two new carriers at extended readiness. That leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier-strike capability; or to re-generate more quickly a two-carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier-strike capability. The next strategic defence and security review in 2015 will provide an opportunity to review these options as the future strategic environment develops. Retaining this flexibility of choice is at the core of the Government’s adaptable approach.
              Floated she will be, evidently, because the dock will be needed for building PoW.
              Just not fitted out with radars and such, possibly, and anyway not commissioned up to 2020.
              Evidently the RN will be so starved of funds that even QE can't even be completed and commissioned before 2020, no matter the use, no matter anything.

              Hopefully in 2015 the review won't be a desperate slashing of the defence budget.
              It almost makes one hope for an EVIDENT degradation in the international situation in the coming years, to ensure that demented decisions are FORCEFULLY avoided.

              Because if we have to hope on politicians' good sense alone, i have the chills.
              "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

              • swerve
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jun 2005
                • 13612

                Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                More importantly where do we find the dock space to build two in tandem!!!
                We don't have to. We could launch QE a bit later than planned, & fit her out more slowly than planned, while PoW is assembled in the dock. Then we float out PoW to free the dock & fit her out.

                Originally posted by 90inFIRST View Post
                Which do we believe, the printed SDSR document or the pr (call centre) lady on the phone???

                If QE is more or less completed she would be floated out when? 2014, POW 2 years later?
                There's no contradiction. The SDSR says nothing at all about QE entering service in 2016, or operating as an LPH. It strongly implies that neither carrier will enter service until one is ready for F-35C, with cat & trap, & definitely says that is delayed until 2020. i.e what the nice MoD lady said.

                I've posted the relevant text more times than I can remember, here & in other places.

                I phoned her because I was irritated that lots of people are saying something that isn't in the SDSR document (which I have a copy of on my computer, & have read carefully), & insisting that because the SDSR doesn't explicitly say it isn't, it's definite. Doh!

                Pre-SDSR schedule was QE commissioning 2016, PoW 2018.

                Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                I'm pretty sure there aren't other docks big enough in the whole of the UK that the MOD could use to house QE.
                I'm guessing she'll be afloat, resting in the water but not completed...?
                Since the official line is that it's cheaper to build her than not, it's hard to imagine her not being completed. The SDSR & the MoD press office both say that both carriers will be built.
                Last edited by swerve; 25th October 2010, 17:32.
                Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                Justinian

                Comment

                • Liger30
                  Armed Forces supporter
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 901

                  Since the official line is that it's cheaper to build her than not, it's hard to imagine her not being completed. The SDSR & the MoD press office both say that both carriers will be built.
                  I meant not completed with all the kit that makes of it a complete and ready to commission ship, but does not take a dock to add.
                  I don't think that, even with the changes for fitting catapults, it would take so long if they wanted to do it in short time! Maybe i'm wrong, of course, but it seems a delay "expanded" by economic considerations over simple technique.
                  Then there's the fact that we are not sure if PoW'll get her own cats or not. Might be "built for but not with", most likely. (How i hate that phrase by now...) Hard to see money given for catapults for a carrier to be mothballed.
                  Either the plan changes, PoW is used actively or she is used as a LPH. Many options.

                  But indeed:
                  Pre-SDSR schedule was QE commissioning 2016, PoW 2018.
                  SDSR document says that the commissioning date will slip from 2016 to 2020, which confirms the analysis and somehow makes it clear that QE is THE carrier. With PoW being... whatever money will allow her to be. Sad but true.
                  "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                  Comment

                  • Jonesy
                    Neo-conversative
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 5097

                    Originally posted by swerve View Post
                    We don't have to. We could launch QE a bit later than planned, & fit her out more slowly than planned, while PoW is assembled in the dock. Then we float out PoW to free the dock & fit her out.
                    She's being built pre-fitted out though, in the same fashion as the T45's, with completed modules welded together. There shouldn't be all that much fitting out in traditional terms. If we launch QE later then we push back PoW as she needs the dock to be assembled in.

                    Comment

                    • obligatory
                      Senior Member
                      • Oct 2008
                      • 7043

                      Ok. I have read the reason given why MOD all of the sudden realized they only need 1 Carrier at a time, cross landing with US & France, etc.

                      It's on page 23.

                      http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum.../dg_191634.pdf

                      I'm convinced the real reason is cost of F-35B went ballistic, and this opens up a chance of buying a handful of F-18 or something, if cost of F-35C also goes ballistic.

                      Comment

                      • Liger30
                        Armed Forces supporter
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 901

                        She's being built pre-fitted out though, in the same fashion as the T45's, with completed modules welded together. There shouldn't be all that much fitting out in traditional terms. If we launch QE later then we push back PoW as she needs the dock to be assembled in.
                        Type 45 isn't so entirely completed...
                        There's quite some fitting out post launch, included the assembly of the SAMPSON radar and radome on top of the mast which isn't too speedy and easy a job. Same goes for the LRR and other kit.

                        I dunno. Mine was an hypothesis, nothing more. But then again, PoW slips forward 2 years. It may be exactly because of the delay of having QE keeping the dock occupied for longer time, also because most likely PoW is still planned WITHOUT cats for now.
                        "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

                        • swerve
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jun 2005
                          • 13612

                          Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                          If we launch QE later then we push back PoW as she needs the dock to be assembled in.
                          The SDSR appears to assume, & what the press office told me confirms, that both carriers will be delayed.
                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                          Justinian

                          Comment

                          • Jonesy
                            Neo-conversative
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 5097

                            Liger

                            You cant really compare the fitting out of a ship's full fixtures with that left over in the T45 build: HVAC, network comms, electrical switchgear and runs, condensor's, reverse osmosis plants, generators, etc, etc as well as all the kit topside and sensor's aloft its a completely different scale of task.

                            QE will be finished, as a hull, by 2014 - that means she'll be, what, another 4yrs alongside the fitting out pier?. Thats an absurd amount of time to mount flight deck fitments and aloft sensors. Converteam will love having the deck to play with of course, but, a lot will have to be spent on upkeep alongside!.

                            Swerve,
                            Problem with that mate is that the build is already under way. Even stretched out its hard to see how there is more than about 3 years worth of build there.
                            Last edited by Jonesy; 25th October 2010, 22:14.

                            Comment

                            • swerve
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jun 2005
                              • 13612

                              Originally posted by Jonesy View Post
                              Swerve,
                              Problem with that mate is that the build is already under way. Even stretched out its hard to see how there is more than about 3 years worth of build there.
                              Since we officially have 5 1/2 years until commissioning under the old timetable, that seems optimistic. Indeed, it sounds faster than the old, pre-SDSR schedule. I thought she was due to float out in 2014 before it was decided to delay her again.

                              Then allow for the need for some redesign (not a lot, I know, but it's fiddly when you have to do it after work's started), stop work on some elements that are already underway but will have to change, maybe do some rework, & then start building them to the new spec. That'll hold her up for a while. Not enough to delay her commissioning 4 years, but I can see her being floated out at least a year late, then taking an inordinately long time to do the minor finishing work & trials. Then, if we're going to have an operational carrier with an operational air group of CTOL F-35C in 2020, there's going to be a lengthy work up period. After all, it'll be over 40 years since we had such a ship, before most of the crew (including the pilots) were born.
                              Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                              Justinian

                              Comment

                              • Fedaykin
                                Fueled by Tea
                                • Dec 2005
                                • 5295

                                I would also add to that the time taken for extra contractors to be brought onboard, UK and American.
                                Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

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

                                Comment

                                • Geoff_B
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jul 2010
                                  • 507

                                  QE may well undock in 2014 and be basically completed by 2016 as there will be builders sea trials, first of class sea trials and working ine before they get near aircraft qulifications. After all how long has Daring been at sea before she actually entered service.

                                  BTW will it Coverteam doing the Emcat rather than EMALS or it that something yet to be decided

                                  Comment

                                  • Jonesy
                                    Neo-conversative
                                    • Jan 2000
                                    • 5097

                                    Originally posted by swerve View Post
                                    Since we officially have 5 1/2 years until commissioning under the old timetable, that seems optimistic. Indeed, it sounds faster than the old, pre-SDSR schedule. I thought she was due to float out in 2014 before it was decided to delay her again.
                                    The float out in 2014 is the consequence of the build being underway. All there is at the moment is rhetoric saying that the builds will be delayed. Doing so, in practice. with a modular build that depends absolutely on modules being delivered in a specific sequence is going to be bloody horrific!.

                                    The redesign itself is by no means straight forward or even advisable right now. To date the number of workable EM catapults trialled in the maritime environment is zero. If they, the government, wanted to do catobar properly they pay converteam to install their EM test rig on Ark Royal before she decomms and launch off some UAV's to see what ship impact firing it has.

                                    That'll hold her up for a while. Not enough to delay her commissioning 4 years, but I can see her being floated out at least a year late, then taking an inordinately long time to do the minor finishing work & trials.
                                    The redesign will plug in a delay, not least as the French position will have to be examined - seeings they thought that the base CVF-UK hull needed expansion for CATOBAR ops, but that cant be a big delay or the costs of parked workforce will start to appear on the bottom line. I agree 2015 float out is likely to be about the maximum this could be pushed to. 3 years in fit out and 2 years on manufacturers and operational sea trials though???.

                                    Comment

                                    • Liger30
                                      Armed Forces supporter
                                      • Jul 2010
                                      • 901

                                      It's expected that the first USN carrier to be fitted with EMALS catapults will be CVN-78, the lead ship of the new CVN-21 class, and expected to enter service in 2015. She will fitted with four EMALS systems, each costing about US $26.5 million.

                                      The USN has held talks with the MoD over possible UK participation in the EMALS programme. Apparently in 2004 the CVF platform design team asked General Atomics for technical information on their EMALS catapult so that appropriate provision could be made in the CVF design, but GA refused - in compliance with US laws. The USN's EMALS programme and associated information is classified and the UK government had to negotiate with the US government to establish arrangements relating to the disclosure, transfer, and use of technical information. In late 2005 UK MOD sources disclosed that there had indeed been a recent joint study with the US Navy to examine the feasibility of fitting EMALS to CVF. Given programme and risk issues, and projected equipment availability, EMALS catapults would not be available for delivery to the UK prior to 2015.

                                      Meanwhile, in April 2006 Converteam (as Alstom had been renamed) was awarded a further MoD Research Acquisition Organisation for the design, build and testing of an Electro-Magnetic Kinetic Integrated Technology (EMKIT) unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) technology demonstrator to demonstrate electromagnetic launch technology through the testing of a high-speed high acceleration demonstrator using advanced linear motor technology. The system commissioned in December 2006 with land-based trials to commence in early 2007. The demonstrator builds on the previous EMCAT project. With two 3.2 MJ energy stores and a 14 metres launch length, it can launch UAV's of up to 500kg at a speed up to 50 m/sec. The notional operation requirement is for a production EMKIT system that will be able to launch UAV's such as the Hermes 180, Hermes 450, Eagle 1 and Predator A from ships as small as a frigate.

                                      [The Hermes 450 (WK450 Watchkeeper in British Army service) provides Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) services. The aerial vehicle weighs 450 kg on take-off. (Source: Elbit Systems/ Thales)]

                                      Like the catapults, it seems likely that any CTOL conversion of CVF will be fitted with US made arresting gear engines.

                                      The current USN standard is the Mark 7 Mod 3, however starting with the USS Ronald Reagan the USN is moving to a new three-wire Mark 7 Mod 4 arresting gear design (actually four arresting gear engines but with two of them interchangeable as the barricade engine). The new system uses polycore cables designed to withstand more traps than steel cables and extra-large pulleys to reduce maintenance and man-hours, and provides the capability to land potentially larger and heavier aircraft. It is hoped that the new design will reduce maintenance requirements by half by increasing the time interval between inspections and overhauls, in addition, the costs associated with replacing these high-wear components will be reduced. Another benefit of this system will be that the arresting gear engines will be more accessible to flight line crews.
                                      From invaluable Navy Matters

                                      http://www.converteam.com/converteam....06.09.03_.pdf A brochure on the Converteam EMKIT programme.

                                      Also, i'm thinking that the power of the propulsion system will be insufficient to power the ship and run the catapults as well.
                                      The CVF is not exactly overpowered, with speed projected to be just over 26 knots.
                                      It is likely that the weight increase will bring this down to 25 on its own.
                                      Depending on the real consume of electricity of the two catapults, it may be necessary to fit a third Gas-Turbine MT30 to provide the power for them, or something smaller, but certainly an additional source of power on the propulsion system itself will have to be fitted.

                                      The lack of speed was something that created troubles back at the times of the PA2, because the french wanted to obtain 27 knots at the very least, and they tried to obtain a redesign of the ship, from the propulsion arrangement to the design of the bow, but of course the UK said no because of budgetary constraints.

                                      However, the two catapults will need their own power system. I think there was space, i read somewhere, to fit up to 2 additionals MT30, one beside each of the current ones, but i may remember uncorrectly.
                                      Anyway, there's the space that was originally saved for the eventuality of needing a Steam catapult with its bulky steam-generation machinery, so fitting the additional power won't be much of a problem.
                                      "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

                                        Yes we may have to wait a few months before the MOD decide on which system to use. EMALS should have done some actual launches with real aircraft by then and the Converteam may have been able to prove the concept for a full sized Emkit system, although i doubt they will have a design suitable for operational use on Aircraft Carrier by then.

                                        Yes there is excess capacity for additional Gas turbines to provide additional power for a EmCat system, although can't remember if it was in the engine room or in the sponsons that the space was reserved for them ? (At one stage the design had Queen mary style propulsion pods and the gas turbines were going the be fitted in the sponsons under each island, but this was deemed too radical and risky at the time (during the cost cutting exercise where the design was revised to the Delta design from the larger BAE/Thales design originally selected).

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Yeah, the pods were rejected. But the MT30 gas turbines still are in the sponsons under the two islands, i think. (May be here that the "classified amount of armour" is located to provide some protection) A bit more risky than putting them deep into the hull, but there's advantages in terms of space, ease of access and mainteinance and such.

                                          And i think it is very hard that the EMKIT can be developed full-scale in time and overtake the US programme which has been going on for far longer, with more urgency, and which is very advanced by now.
                                          The EMKIT might find its way on the flight deck of the Type 26 one day, though...

                                          The demonstrator builds on the previous EMCAT project. With two 3.2 MJ energy stores and a 14 metres launch length, it can launch UAV's of up to 500kg at a speed up to 50 m/sec. The notional operation requirement is for a production EMKIT system that will be able to launch UAV's such as the Hermes 180, Hermes 450, Eagle 1 and Predator A from ships as small as a frigate.
                                          This would give the Type 26 extensive drone capability, and not just limit it to Camcopter or Fire Scout-type UAVs. It is quite fascinating... and with the flight deck being pretty damn big, a longer and more powerful EMKIT could be fitted.
                                          "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

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X