UK to sign contracts for 2 new super-carriers...

[RTHolmes]

well its a chopper so compared to a Hawkeye its half the speed, half the max alt, half the range... but you can take off and land pretty much anywhere. luckily we have a few E3s.

[Swoop]

ok, so for our £2bn per boat we're getting an apparently dinky little ship (when compared to a USN boat) that, due to the decision not to make it nuclear powered, will also have substantially less aircraft per ton due to the large amounts of deck plan taken up by exhaust funnel and air intakes for the engines, which naturally need to be low in the ship. Carriers really aren't made nuclear-propelled just for fun.

And after a quick googling it also appears that no, really, gas turbine vessels can't just be upgraded to power steam cats due to the huge amount of power required, the capacity of the turbines will already be used to power the ship, without a major upgrade and loss of further hanger / deck space they can't power steam cats at the same time.  Nuclear power is the only type that can do this easily.

[Dowding]

And how much does nuclear power cost? Decomissioning, servicing etc. You don't just have to pay for the building of the ship - the maintenance costs are the real killer. The UK economy could not afford a nuclear CV fleet.

As for EWACs - how about the EW version of the V-22?

And I still think catapult could retrofitted - either steam or electric at some future point in time.

[Swoop]

Sure, nuclear power is more expensive....however, there'd be no need to refit in future years, the available space on the ship could accomodate a further 20 aircraft (approx), there'd be no need for dev costs on VTOL aircraft cos standard naval aircraft could be used......the costs we're saving now by going with turbines would be ofset by the cost of all this extra stuff.

And really mate, read up on it, everything I've read says no, steam cats are not viable on these ships.  There's just no space available without reducing aircraft capacity even further than it's already been reduced by going with gas turbines. 

Electric cats are.....except electric cats don't actually exist yet.  The Yanks are talking about developing them but they certainly wont be ready for use by the time these boats are commissioned.  Sure, we could fit electric cats at some future date but what would be the point cos by then we'll have a fleet air arm full of expensive VTOL aircraft in service that would effectively become obsolete overnight?

[Makarov9]

You'll shoot your eye out kid...

[Dowding]

Sure, nuclear power is more expensive....however...

There is no however. It would hamstring the whole endeavour - at least with gas turbines we get some capability. Nuclear CVs would never get off the drawing board. If you want to compare costs, look at France's Charles de Gaulle.

there'd be no need for dev costs on VTOL aircraft cos standard naval aircraft could be used...

Most of the development costs are now sunk costs and are therefore irrelevant to the decision. And which standard naval aircraft do you mean? F-18? You know the problems we've been having getting the source code from the Yanks for the Apache. Is that an acceptable solution?

[indy007]

I think CVN-77 has an electric catapult. Supposed to need less speed for launch & recovery. If not, one is still slated for the CVNX.

[CptTrips]

Have your guys considered a Ballistic Catapult solution? 

Take one of those big 18” guns off one of your aging WWII battleships. 
Devise a launch sled that works sorta like a pop-gun cork.
Lay that big gun down horizontal, mount the aircraft, elevate to 20 deg….
Booom!  Airborn baby!

Admittedly the initial G-load would be a bit harsh. 

If you’d like to have your government contact me, I’d be happy to flesh out the design with them for a small consulting fee.

Just think how impressed the French would be.


 ,
Wab

[Dowding]

We don't have any battleships, aging or otherwise. 

We do have the plans for some very highly spec'd 'oil pipeline' that never were delivered to a customer called Saddam...

[Nilsen]

No....unfortunately they can't.

The carrier project has been botched about as badly as it could possibly be. We will pay the same as America pays for its hundred-thousand-ton, hundred-aircraft nuclear powered supercarriers. For this money we will get sixty-thousand-ton, forty-aircraft medium sized gas turbine ships.

Gas ships can't have catapult launch - lacking the necessary steam - so our carriers won't be able to launch regular carrier planes or even be retrofitted to include cats at a future date, not without also replacing the gas turbine power system as well, which would probably cost as much as the carrier will in the first place and taking it out of service for years. This will hamstring the critical radar aircraft and make them hugely more expensive. Some kind of unique, custom rotary-wing solution will be needed. This will never fly as high or see as far as a nice cheap Hawkeye (as used by the US Navy, France and many other overseas customers).


So.....for the same price the Yanks pay we're getting cheap arse non-nuclear boats that'll never be able to launch standard carrier aircraft or operate AEW planes anywhere near as effective as the venerable Hawkeye.  Supposedly we're entrusting the air defense of these boats to the new type 45 destroyers. The billion pound ones that don't have a weapon system yet......

Gee thanks Mr Brown.

Well the next french aircraft carrier will have conventional power AND catapults for their Rafales. They opted to go non-nuclear after the CDG but it will have the same types of aircraft.

Wtg on getting them. I would go down a different route than the 2 supercarriers though.

[Reschke]

What is the deal with two towers? Why not consolidate into one tower? In my uneducated opinion I think that having one larger tower on the flight deck would be better instead of having two completely separate areas that would seem to cost more money in the long haul.

On a different track instead of the USN scrapping some of our older carriers why don't we just sell them to the RN and use the money to offset the cost of brand new carriers in our fleet? I mean aren't the Brits already the little brothers to us over in the US and as a result they take some of our "hand me down" equipment?

Just kidding. I can't imagine that long term costs of a nuclear powered CV would be more than a gas turbine powered CV. Plus all the incidentals that would be needed for future upgrades based on future aircraft and needs for the carriers. Someone is only looking at aircraft procurement and not at the total package in my opinion.

[soda72]

Wtg on getting them. I would go down a different route than the 2 supercarriers though.

You can't rule the world with a fishing boat...

 

[Swoop]

Nils,

yep the next French carrier does indeed have gas turbines and steam cats.  However......it's a 75,000 ton ship with an air arm capacity of only 35 fixed wing aircraft.  Most of the available hanger space being used by the turbine systems.

[Swoop]

P.S.  Can ya tell I'm a big fan of nuclear power?

I want a nuclear powered bike some day......if only to increase my tank range beyond 120 miles.

[Swoop]

And which standard naval aircraft do you mean? F-18?

No, the standard non-STOVL F-35 and the Hawkeye.