£2bn Navy ships get the OK

OSLO

War Hero
The other interesting point is that currently there will one type of aircraft being flown by the FAA and the RAF. Surely someone in Whitehall will ask what the point of having a FAA AND an RAF if both fly the same aircraft off of the same platforms for the same missions.

I predict the demise of the FAA or the RAF by 2020, more likely the former.
 

smoothbore

Lantern Swinger
Oil_Slick said:
Not_a_boffin said:
Gents

How about some facts as the project stands now?


Basically the whole project went to ratshiite the minute they decided to design the carrier around the plane the RAF wanted rather than what the Navy needed.

The F35B has half the internal weapons load, 2/3rds the range and costs 50% more than the USN's F35C version… add up the £15 million a plane x 150 we are paying as a premium to keep the RAF happy and it's quite an eye opener.

When you look at it objectvely, we are not getting a fast fleet carrier, we are getting a glorified mobile barge with a very austere equipment fit and an utterly basic flight deck on top so the Crabs can join in the next bunfight.


And the ultimate irony?

After we've spent 9 years dicking about developing a STVOL carrier. the RAF are now looking at the possibility of converting some of it's F35B purchase into the F35C to fulfil it's FOAS requirement.

Yep, the Navy may well end up with the planes the RAF originally wanted and the RAF could end up with the planes the Navy originally wanted… another procurement 'triumph' in the making. :?

Actually we are getting the plane that BAe & Rolls Royce wanted as this had the highest UK content. I know for a fact that the MoD study recommended the conventional take off and landing version to the Minister but the CEOs of BAe & RR were in Hoon's office quicker than you can say "share price" to persuade him to change his mind & go against 7 or so years of expert study.

Unfortunately we have spent £800M approx on the CVF design and still not got anything workable. As for the the possibility of a late switch to a CTOL version of the JSF then (mentioned in another post) this really would complicate things as we would have to work out how to generate the steam - not difficult in itself but there has been no suggestion that the ship will be powered by steam turbines. Another design delay required (and more expense). Nuclear anyone? I don't think so. Christ, the expense. A seperate steam generator & gas turbine propulsion? Maybe. Magnetic Rail Gun catapult? You have got to be joking - how would we protect the aircraft and its weapon load from the electro-magnetic pulse?

Remember, the original staff requirement was for actually for a "glorified mobile barge with a very austere equipment fit and an utterly basic flight deck". The C3 was to be provided by the Type 45 & the embarked aviation assets.

And remember, in a similar time scale to procuring the carriers & their a/c UK PLC is also meant to be building a new N deterrent system & their submarines. I don't thiunk that we can afford to do both, even if Gordon has the political will.

Don't think we will ever see the CVF, myself. IMHO we may get new N subs but they will probably also carry a TLAM type weapon & the surface fleet will consist of a few T 45 & T 23s & their derivatives, the LPDs & some helo carriers (doesn't this sound like the 1960s????).
 
We had quite a few Conventional Carriers and 2 Commando Carriers in the 60s, what do you mean by " Doesn`t this sound like the 1960s"?
 

janner

MIA
Book Reviewer
Would going nuclear be that much more expensive over the projected whole life of the carriers, with fuel usage taken into account? That would solve the steam problem.
 

stumpy

War Hero
Aren’t the French planning to use a version of the CVF plan to launch proper aircraft via catapult? In that case I guess that the catapult question should have been solved… hopefully. It makes sense to go for the USN version of the aircraft, and go forward with only one version of the ship, the French version.
 

Oil_Slick

War Hero
stumpy said:
Aren’t the French planning to use a version of the CVF plan to launch proper aircraft via catapult? In that case I guess that the catapult question should have been solved… hopefully. It makes sense to go for the USN version of the aircraft, and go forward with only one version of the ship, the French version.


Yes, the French have solved all those problems and have already placed an expot request with the yanks for the catapults and arrester gear. They are using steam boiler to power the cats.

As regards the UK ones, it is/was intended to fit the US EMALS electric cats at a later date.

The French will have a crew 300 bigger than ours and can carry between 60-70 Rafales and genuine AWACS aircraft, E-2D Hawkeyes.
 

chockhead819

War Hero
"The other interesting point is that currently there will one type of aircraft being flown by the FAA and the RAF. Surely someone in Whitehall will ask what the point of having a FAA AND an RAF if both fly the same aircraft off of the same platforms for the same missions"

I think its called Joint Force Harrier at the moment. :p
 

rictic

Badgeman
chockhead819 said:
what was wrong with the cloth helmets & earduffs ???

My hearing is stuffed from being on the flight deck., al those helmets did was keep my short chinese barber haircut form blowing around.
 
flatscrubber said:
Personally i'll actually believe it when i see them flying the white ensign and launching whatever type of plane off their flight decks.
Theres still a long way to go and if they are built its no guarantee they'll enter service.
Anyone remember the Upholder class submarines!!!

Like the Upholders we will be able to lease them out, to the Home Office in this case as floating Prisons.
 

smoothbore

Lantern Swinger
higthepig said:
We had quite a few Conventional Carriers and 2 Commando Carriers in the 60s, what do you mean by " Doesn`t this sound like the 1960s"?

The cancellation of CVA-01 in 1966, leaving Eagle & Ark to run out (Eagle being decommissioned early, I think). Leaving us with just Commando carriers in an LPH (and later an ASW) role.
 

smoothbore

Lantern Swinger
letthecatoutofthebag said:
smoothbore said:
Magnetic Rail Gun catapult? You have got to be joking - how would we protect the aircraft and its weapon load from the electro-magnetic pulse?

The USN is looking a these sort of catupluts in its CVN replacement (CVN-21). As I understand, the levels of power mean that any EMP is not significant (and certainly not the level as a result of a thermonuclear blast) and would not affect the aircraft. The idea is that the catapults are no longer dependent on the ships steam supplies and it actually reduces stress on the airframe.

I look forward to them getting the appropriate safety case. And I really hope that they do.
 

smoothbore

Lantern Swinger
Oil_Slick said:
stumpy said:
Aren’t the French planning to use a version of the CVF plan to launch proper aircraft via catapult? In that case I guess that the catapult question should have been solved… hopefully. It makes sense to go for the USN version of the aircraft, and go forward with only one version of the ship, the French version.


Yes, the French have solved all those problems and have already placed an expot request with the yanks for the catapults and arrester gear. They are using steam boiler to power the cats.

As regards the UK ones, it is/was intended to fit the US EMALS electric cats at a later date.

The French will have a crew 300 bigger than ours and can carry between 60-70 Rafales and genuine AWACS aircraft, E-2D Hawkeyes.

Very interesting but, despite all the talk, I have not seen it confirmed that the French will use the same design as us. Might be wrong. If French involvement means that we will use US steam Cats & have growth potential for an extra 300 crew and E2C Hawkeye etc then Im all in favour.

Still don't think we'll see these hulls, though.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top