CVF - the plot thickens

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by Not_a_boffin, Mar 4, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. the_matelot

    the_matelot War Hero Moderator

    I leave the mob in 11 years-I know I'm never going to serve on one of these vessels as they won't be in service by then...
  2. Please excuse the lamentable ignorance of an ex-Pongo for all things Naval but can anyone explain why, according to the illustrations accompanying this article, the carriers are apparently being equipped with an angled flight -deck given that they also have a "ski-ramp" at the bow?
    That's what's shown on the first illustration anyway, though the second one doesn't seem to have the angled deck at all, WTF?
    There is always to be seen just a little strip of Green, on the left of the Thin Red Line!
  3. "Artists" impression ! Piss artist probably... :)
  4. Hedging our bets ... perhaps.


  5. Because the fuckwits at MoD can't make their mind up wether they want a proper carrier or a mickey mouse carrier… so being good civil serpents, they opted for both. It's fitted 'for but not with' catapults and arrestor gear.
  6. You have probably seen pictures of the French version which will have catapults, wires etc like an American one. By the way the French one will also have luxuries like missiles for defence and a proper ops room.
  7. Bigger bomb shop and more AVTAG bunkerage too… grrrrr

  8. And a tank for bulk red wine!
  9. Forgive me as a ignorant submariner, but surely the angled flight deck allows the FJ Jockey to fly away if he fecks up his landing without killing anyone or thing loafing about the bow area.

  10. Nutty, what makes you think a Waffoo would ever cock up a landing?
  11. Oi, you're ill. Lie on the sofa gulping your 10p soup from Aldi, watching Jeremy Kyle and don't get het up about Whitehall.
  12. Would not 2 islands create more turbulence over the flight deck, or have I got the laws of physics arse about face ?
  13. Maxi

    OK when they practice circuits and bumps or what ever, just in case of the 1 in a trillion chance they get gusted off line or cock up. Did you see the pics of the Square Head in the Airbus that was a bit of Sixpence-Half a Crown or what?


    PS Why no bite from the Maxi McMuffin in Ruperts names.

    PPS I was told by a Pussers FJ Jock who moved into boats that no such thing as a landing on a carrier existed. Any landing was just a "controlled crash"
  14. Might well do, but the benefits (separation of uptakes, EMI/EMC emb8ggerance reduction, deck park issues) outweigh the effects. She is actually very well set up for operating big strikes (very different from just large numbers of aircraft). It's a shame that other aspects of the ship (and the aircraft) are far less impressive.
  15. Hook line and sinker this time Nutty.

    As for Ruperts names, just trying to liomit the number of bites on a weekly basis.

    The controlled crash comment is a bit like the one that any landing is a good one if you can walk away from it.
  16. At least this helps put the 'size' issue in perspective. Leaving aside construction costs, the steel is only £65m out of the overall budget of £3.8bn (i.e. 1.7%) and the air is free. Nearly all the outlay will be for on board systems, mainly the Carrier Air Groups and their infrastructure. Perhaps people could bear this in mind when they baulk at paying for such 'large' vessels. Even so, our two 65,000 ton CVFs will still be dwarfed by the ten American c.100,000 ton CVNs.
  17. NG

    I'm afraid the CAG cost is NOT part of the £3.8Bn. The onboard systems are also relatively minimal, probably less than £500m per ship inlcuding installation. A large chunk of the 3.8 is going to be swallowed up by ACA/MoD management activities.

    However, you are correct in that it's not a huge price to pay for what they will ultimately deliver...
  18. Looking at the picture of the French one I have changed my mind and realise that the British choice with the STOVL version of the JSF is best. Why? Because on the French ship the landing area is so large in relation to the flight deck that you loose loads of useful deck space, and as there are only 2 catapults you can land and launch at the same time. The Nimitz's work as they are so large that when landing aircraf they still have 2 out of the 4 catapults able ot be used and lots of deck space for aircraft.

    I hate to say it...but I think that we have made the right choice!
  19. Not so fast mate.

    Ever thought what the jet blast from Dave B angled downwards is going to be like in terms of heat, noise and air pressure? Able to park aircraft under it or work on them? I don't think so......and that's before we get to the bit about Rolling Vertical Landings, the latest wheeze to try and make STOVL meet the original requirement.

    There is little to choose between the operating modes in terms of deck space once you get above a certain size. For STOVL, the launch mode (200m x 25m or so) constrains the deck available for parking and prelaunch manoeuvring. On CTOL, the recovery deck as you say takes up a lot of room.However, one of the reasons the ship is so beamy at teh flightdeck and why the islands are where they are, is so that recovered aircraft can taxi aft down the stbd side.

    Forget concurrent launch and recovery. Not even a Nimitz can do that unless it's down to about ten aircraft aboard. The bow cat area on a Nimitz is prime parking space post recovery.

Share This Page