Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on July 03, 2008, 03:39:10 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7486683.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7486683.stm)
I think this is a great move. At long last the mistakes of the 60s and 70s can be reversed and the importance of projected air power is recognised and will be available to the UK armed forces.
I wouldn't mind paying a penny or two more in tax for them too. :)
-
I agree that this is what the UK needs if it is going to have any independent military ability outside it's own borders however it is a pity they weren't willing to pay for the steam catapults to go with them. Now they have to buy the VSTOL JSF which will be more expensive to buy and maintain and less capable than it's non VSTOL counterpart. In the long run it will cost more money and they will likely take longer to get operational.
-
Welcome to the Super-Carrier club. I did not know final design decisions had been made yet on whether or not catapults would be included.
One way or another Britain will be able to whistle up a world class CBG of about the same capability of the USN.
This is an extremely capable design.
-
I believe the carriers have the ability to have catapults installed. This is in case the deal with the f35 falls through and the navy resorts to navalising the eurofighter.
Hopefully, i may have the opportunity to serve on one of them. I recently passed my flight aptitude tests at Cranwell and have my AIB at portsmouth on the 22nd. Fingers crossed eh. :) I've lots of studying to do concerning the RN, so no AH for me for a while.
-
I believe the carriers have the ability to have catapults installed.
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.
-
swoop for PM.
-
If I ran for election with the manefesto "wednesday babes every day for all" d'ya think I'd win?
-
You weren't running already? Crap, I already wrote you in.
-
Back to the subject.
There's been some talk of electric catapults but, as I understand it, there are also major technical difficulties and costs involved in retrofitting these to the new boats as well.
And even if they were, by the time someone makes the decision we'll already have spent billions developing some sort of VTOL AEW aircraft for the non-cat era.
-
saw a interview with the commander of a carrier group, he said steam cats were old tech, and would be replaced by mag-lav launchers, like in amusement park rides, i am not sure if he meant new ships or retrofit older ships.
congrats to the UK. Who is building the ships?
-
some sort of VTOL AEW aircraft
currently Sea King, to be replaced by Merlins IIRC
the carriers will be built by the usual combination of UK yards.
-
Christ. Sea King AEW's were being used in the Falklands......
not familiar with the Merlin, any good?
-
Gas ships can't have catapult launch...
Not true. We have plenty of gas fired powerstations producing high pressure steam. At work we recently had a diesel package boiler that could generate a head of steam to power a huge paper machine.
Secondly, the navalised Eurofighter doesn't need a catapult. The life of the carrier (which is bigger than it needs to be) will extend beyond the F-35's life - it can be modified to catapult launch when needed for a second generation aircraft.
-
Merlins very effective in ASW role, also used as general purpose transports/medevac etc. FAA pilots like em apparently. I thought they were already used as AEW for fleet defense but apparently we are still using Sea Kings (massively upgraded since Falklands btw)
navalised Typhoon still wouldnt have any STOL capablity so would need catapult and cables
edit: hmmm wiki says naval Typhoon would be STOBAR, cant see how it could lift fully loaded in 250m without a catapult :confused:
-
OK, so you wanna fit steam cats to an existing gas turbine ship.....where do you put the water tanks, boilers and valving needed?
I get your point, it's possible, but it's not quite as technically feasible as you might think.
And yeah, where'd you hear navalised tiffies wont need a cat?
These Merlin thingies.....they as effective in the role as a Hawkeye?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
You'll shoot your eye out kid...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
:cool:,
Wab
-
We don't have any battleships, aging or otherwise. :aok
We do have the plans for some very highly spec'd 'oil pipeline' that never were delivered to a customer called Saddam...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
:P
-
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.
-
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.
-
And which standard naval aircraft do you mean? F-18?
No, the standard non-STOVL F-35 and the Hawkeye.
-
Reschke - like that is ever going to happen. Ours is the more senior service, remember. ;)
Has the US decommissioned a nuclear powered carrier yet? Any costs on that?
-
You can't rule the world with a fishing boat...
:P
Have you seen the Canadian Navy.. :rofl
-
Hmmm,CV without cats!The Brits introduced the catapult and metal flight decks.It becomes clearer to me that the good old U.S.of A. is the only world power trying to bankroll a large Armed foce and particularily a large Navy.I think the Brits are basing their strategy on CV's off of the Falkland war.It worked ok then,and I guess they are thinking leave well enough alone.China and India seem to be trying to join the big boys in the building of ships.I believe China with a large navy would pose a real threat to world peace.
Dobe
-
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.00h00100100a003
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6496
(http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img_400/cvf_uk_carrier_2.jpg)
Carrier design is an exceptionally complex three-dimensional puzzle in which flight deck, hangar deck, stability and sea-keeping requirements interact. Initial studies for CVF encompassed six different candidate ships across a range of capabilities and aircraft types and led to the adoption of the technologically advanced, innovative and highly capable “Design Delta”, centred on MoD’s choice of the STOVL (short take-off and vertical landing) Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA).
The adaptability of Design Delta is unique and has involved extensive modelling, computer analysis and tank tests.
Some of the innovations in the design include:
First adaptable design that, while configured to operate STOVL aircraft, can be altered later in its projected 40-50 year service life to accommodate catapults and arrestor gear to fly conventional CV (Carrier Variant) aircraft;
Location of main engines high in the ship, reducing penetration of large downtakes and exhausts deep in the hull;
First full integrated waste management system to meet projected future environmental standards;
First carrier with split “island” superstructure - improving control of flight deck operations.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance has worked exhaustively to achieve value for money. The result is a design capable of operating more than twice as many larger and heavier aircraft compared with existing Invincible class – but carrying a similar sized crew – and with increased strategic capability.
Design Delta also displaces about three times as much as an Invincible, has four times the internal hull volume, carries 70 percent more ship and aircraft fuel, has 75 percent more unrefuelled range and accommodation to the very latest and highest standards.
-
Diesel powered Kitty Hawk is being decommissioned. We could probably cut you a real deal on her. She was launched in 1961.
Then you could get Enterprise in 2013.
Kennedy is already mothballed but you take all three you could probably get free shipping and the mothballed Constellation thrown in for free.
These might take just a bit of retrofit; you know, new coat of paint and such. :)
-
Diesel powered Kitty Hawk is being decommissioned. We could probably cut you a real deal on her. She was launched in 1961.
Then you could get Enterprise in 2013.
Kennedy is already mothballed but you take all three you could probably get free shipping and the mothballed Constellation thrown in for free.
These might take just a bit of retrofit; you know, new coat of paint and such. :)
You're right. It's about time this BBS got ourselves a fleet of Aircraft carriers. I say we stock them with Corsairs only.
The members will have to BYOS (bring your own seafire).
-
You're right. It's about time this BBS got ourselves a fleet of Aircraft carriers. I say we stock them with Corsairs only.
The members will have to BYOS (bring your own seafire).
Fun police would just lancstuka them. :(
-
yeah we only get outdated rubbish from the US like Trident, E3, Javelin etc :rofl
1 Nimitz class or 2 QE class is hardly worth arguing - we get 2 very capable task groups instead of 1. similar capability too - about 90 aircraft for either. except the QE class is waaaay more modern and only needs a crew of ~600, rather than ~3000 for Nimitz class. purchase cost may be similar but i suspect the QEs will be considerably cheaper to run.
our defense spending is 2nd only to the US, but still only 15% of the US :confused: so compact and effective is the way we like it. looks like the right move to me :aok
-
Reschke - like that is ever going to happen. Ours is the more senior service, remember. ;)
Has the US decommissioned a nuclear powered carrier yet? Any costs on that?
We don't care about costs on stuff like that we would probably just sink the thing and let the reactor run its course.
-
We don't care about costs on stuff like that we would probably just sink the thing and let the reactor run its course.
... right outside the Golden Gate. :devil
-
Yeah refresh my memory you navy types but didn't the 3, or 4, ship gas turbined Kittyhawk class have high pressure steam catapults? And they weren't much bigger then this new Brit class right? And no doubt the technology is much more refined now and miniaturized then when the Kitty was launched.
Actually I thought the Lizzies were being planned in the 40,000 ton class. So what your ending up with is a legitimate supercarrier.
And dont forget that part of the reason you are leaning towards STVOL F-35s is due to the outstanding service of your Harrier force. There are some Plus's going the STVOL route, such as quicker turnarounds, easier operation/safer in high sea states, and reduced cost.
And dont forget. While they will be on Navy ships they will be flown and operated by the RAF. And the RAF has always leaned towards STVOL.
Your going to have to think outside the box a little here. The F-35 is being designed to be probably the least labor intensive fighter aircraft ever produced. Land em, load em, gas em, and fight them. Time and time again with as little down time as technically possible. Even the stealth coating can be touched up with a paint brush. The amount of sorties and firepower the Lizzies will be able to sustain is going to be unprecedented. STVOL requires less deck space, less upkeep, and will be able to sustain combat Ops in the 30% range more then conventional CV F-35 aircraft.
Even better the RAF has tons of experience in STVOL operations, training, technical expertise.
Lizzie battle groups will consist of advanced air warfare DDs, advanced SSNs, very capable amphibious warfare ships, and about every advanced western weapons system you can think of.
But dont look at the STVOL option with such a narrow mind. You buy expensive systems based on the mission you will need them for. You dont buy them just "to keep up with the Yanks".
-
I'm surprised that we are getting them to be honest. I think this and the French 2nd big carrier designed along the same lines (non-nuclear by the way) is a sign that Britain and France want to be able assert EU muscle anywhere in the world - with an eye on China in particular.
By the way, someone mentioned the Falklands War. I think the lessons of that conflict are finally being learned - we could presently not hold onto the islands and their resources with the current Royal Navy. With just one of these new carrier groups it would be much easier than in 1982.
-
IMO, such as that's worth, a non cat capable carrier is pretty darn stupid. That means every single aircraft that the ship has MUST be a vtol. You have no other options so the missions of the ship and the force it will project will be rather limited in scope. If you can't put an awacs system, an anti sub package, a tanker, an EW system you are hanging your strike team out to dry not to mention cutting your early warning about threats above the surface to a minimum of over the horizon for the screen. That's pretty darn silly, again IMO.
-
There was a time when the Fleets of England ruled the seven seas. Tell you now, I wish they still did, the morals of England are morals I will defend. I have always been proud to be
associated so historically with that nation.
This is indeed a good move in the right direction.
-
:aok
-
IMO, such as that's worth, a non cat capable carrier is pretty darn stupid. That means every single aircraft that the ship has MUST be a vtol. You have no other options so the missions of the ship and the force it will project will be rather limited in scope. If you can't put an awacs system, an anti sub package, a tanker, an EW system you are hanging your strike team out to dry not to mention cutting your early warning about threats above the surface to a minimum of over the horizon for the screen. That's pretty darn silly, again IMO.
Except your going to have AD DDs in a protective picket screen around that CV and everything in the BG is going to be networked into one weapon. Current AEW is with helicopters right? I suspect the new sensors, ships, and doctrine will not cause a loss in defensive capability. An since the Liz will operate Helicopters its safe to assume it will have a ASW suite.
These blokes have been doing this type of thing for 1,000 years. I cant help but think they know what their doing.
-
Dont forget that UAVs will prolly be on board in some years. They can do over the horizon targeting, drop munitions, be AEW palttforms and so on. That beeing said i would either go even bigger with cats (never gonna happen) or several smaller carriers like the italian or spanish designes. The UK's middle-of-the-road design to me atleast seems to cost more both in build and manning than you get in return. Time will tell tho, but I think it all boils down to what role and how effective UAVs can become.
-
The manning thing is where the saving is made - they only need the same crew as the current carriers.
What I like about the new carriers is that they will allow Britain to park one off a hostile shore and add to the diplomatic endeavour on shore. ;)
-
All told.....we do *need* the carriers. Having a Royal Navy Ensign flying over these boats with F-35Bs parked all over is just gonna be so cool to see.
However, I just wish they were 40,000 tons bigger and had a capacity to match the US supercarriers. They just feel 2nd rate to me and considering they're gonna cost just as much as a USN boat......just another example of rip off Britain I suppose.
-
still not sure why we would want a Nimitz size carrier, besides any bigger and there wont be a berth for em in the UK. IIRC we only have 1 dry dock which will take QEs as it is. and like I said 2x45 aircraft is far more versatile than 1x90.
everything I've read about the QEs, from the initial design consultations onward have made provision for cats, even if they are not required and fitted right now.
something else occured to me regarding Hawkeyes - the F35 has a large space available for internal equipment and one option Ive seen is a very beefy generator installed for powering next-gen weapons (laser, microwave, acoustic etc) which might be perfect for AEW/AWACS/JSTAR use, like a modern equivalent of the EA6B. haven't read anything about this but I cant be the only one who's thought of it.
-
Nah, you misunderstand. Our new carriers are costing £2bn each, before the inevitable cost over-runs of course. That's the same price as American CVNs.
Instead of 2 x 45 we could have 2 x 90.
However, your point about berthing is taken. I really hadn't thought of that, but then the main argument for these boats is that building em is going to provide jobs and economic wossnames to British ship builders......we could have yank boats instead and still provide work but to Polish builders instead.
Um, wait......
-
Geez how time flys.I served on the USS Kitty Hawk many years ago,and now she is retired,and thats after the Navy put all that money to modernize her.Heck I think the Navy should keep all the old ships around for a bit.These new ones cost a lot of money,and a CV is a CV to me.If we aren't going to use them,give them to the Brits and save them the cost.We gave the Brits all them old WWI destroyers,and we should do it again to help are friends.Keeping ahead of everyone in the arms department is exspensive,but with the world situation the way it is,I guess we have to play the game.
Dobe
-
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.
Seems to me it's a watered down version of what should be. A slap to the face of England and the glory its navy once was! But, they have to pay for all those muslims that live there tax free because they need their social programs. Sigh. Oh and don't come over here brits, it's just as bad now if not worse. I'm moving to Australia lol.
-
Seems to me it's a watered down version of what should be. A slap to the face of England and the glory its navy once was! But, they have to pay for all those muslims that live there tax free because they need their social programs. Sigh. Oh and don't come over here brits, it's just as bad now if not worse. I'm moving to Australia lol.
I've heard it all now. Muslims is shrinking are carrierz!!!
-
Have they proposed any names? You guys have some great historical ship names that would be nice to see sailing the seas again.
-
All told.....we do *need* the carriers. Having a Royal Navy Ensign flying over these boats with F-35Bs parked all over is just gonna be so cool to see.
However, I just wish they were 40,000 tons bigger and had a capacity to match the US supercarriers. They just feel 2nd rate to me and considering they're gonna cost just as much as a USN boat......just another example of rip off Britain I suppose.
Ever see Eddie Izzard?
"Come on now, you're British. Lower your expectations. Lower...lower..."
:),
Wab
-
I think in the BBC article they said one would be named 'Prince of Wales'.
-
Have they proposed any names? You guys have some great historical ship names that would be nice to see sailing the seas again.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales. Pretty lame really! HMS Indomitable and HMS Warspite would have been a lot better. Can you imagine the ragheads: "durkha durkha! HMS Warspite is parked offshore! Durkha durka poop my burkha!"
-
"durkha durkha! HMS Warspite is parked offshore! Durkha durka poop my burkha!"
:lol :lol :lol :lol
-
Yep, lame.
You have better historical names than that. At least one of these should be Ark Royal!
-
We gave the Brits all them old WWI destroyers
really? for gunnery practise presumably :)
btw I was working in Dublin in '95 when the USS John F Kennedy was moored in Dublin Bay. even a couple of miles away a big carrier is a VERY intimidating thing. as soon as I saw it I realised why Gunboat Diplomacy is so effective :uhoh
-
really? for gunnery practise presumably :)
Nope - to try and stop the U-Boats starving us into submission during WW2.
To be honest, I think these boats are about right for us. A Nimitz class boat would require more personnel to man and there's no point in being able to carry 90 aircraft if you don't have the budget to purchase or operate them. 45 Lightning B's are still going to be up to the task of taking on whatever opposition they are presented with for the foreseeable future - unless the Chinese get their hands on some F-22's.
As for the AEW concern - I guess its valid, but the Type 45 destroyers coming on line right now are the most advanced Air Defence ships ever put into service by any Navy and the only thing likely to change that is if the Americans build a new class sometime in the future.
-
They weren't given anyway, we paid for them. IIRC the US navy sent a ship to South Africa to pick the gold up for them.
-
Well, Im still under the impression that the option of a steam catapult is one that will be kept open and no decision is needed as of now. The Lizzie could easily be fitted with one at a later date. And our advanced Hawkeye EWA aircraft, which wont be operational for a few more years anyway, will also remain a viable option. The Hawkeye has already been show to be capable of a carrier launch using non steam arrestor wires anyway.
The thing to keep in mind is that many of these decisions simply dont "need to" be made right now. The ships are being built with flexibility in mind and flexible options, do'able flexible options, with be there in the future. Even the aircraft wont be ready at launch and the Lizzy will probably start off her service with Harriers. It all looks like very sound planning, and a very sound design, to me.
The important thing is to get them building and to save a British naval shipbuilding industry from disappearing. Many of the big decisions just dont need to be made right now.
-
I guess I'll ask the obvious...why not use nuclear power?
-
Because it's more "green " than using nuclear power. They'd rather burn hydrocarbons than have the bad old monster nuclear reactor and all of it's devious little radioactive collaborators anywhere near the country.
:rolleyes:
-
I guess I'll ask the obvious...why not use nuclear power?
Cost - both in construction and decommissioning.
-
Why not just buy a couple versions of that huge new Chinese freighter that delivers goods to the U.S. at over 30 knots with a crew of 11? Yes, ELEVEN.
-
:huh
-
yes eleven, capt, 1st mate, 2nd mate, cook, engineer, 2-3 helmsman, 3 men to handle the lines when docking. How many men did you think it took to run a modern computer controlled ship?
-
Because it's more "green " than using nuclear power. They'd rather burn hydrocarbons than have the bad old monster nuclear reactor and all of it's devious little radioactive collaborators anywhere near the country.
:rolleyes:
Cost
-
yes eleven, capt, 1st mate, 2nd mate, cook, engineer, 2-3 helmsman, 3 men to handle the lines when docking. How many men did you think it took to run a modern computer controlled ship?
11 is the perfect number, two five a side teams and a referee.
-
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.
-
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.
Depends on who they use the ships to invade :devil
-
Nilsen,
How much will the fuel oil for the ship cost over it's expected 30+ years of service? It's not free.
That is a very good point maverick. I am not arguing in one way or another. You just had the rolleyes thingy and attempted to explain why they did what they did using a very ehm different approach and you know it ;)
However i suspect it is a "different" budget. One time huge cost vs long time running cost. Getting approval now for the cheaper option is often easyer because when they already have the ships they know they will get the funding to use them.
There is a similar debate in the us over nuclear vs conventional cruisers now. The pros and cons are pretty much the same, and were they land in the end is still not settled.
-
Why not just buy a couple versions of that huge new Chinese freighter that delivers goods to the U.S. at over 30 knots with a crew of 11? Yes, ELEVEN.
AFAIK the biggest was/is the Emma Maersk? Not sure China have ever built anything even close...of course they fill them all with their exports but I'm sure that doesnt count.
-
I dont think theres any debate anymore between nuclear and conventionally powered CGs. The ultimate evolution of the CGN was the Virginia class ships and they, along with the others, are long retired. And maintaining, keeping fueled, nuclear propulsion systems is no piece of cake either. Nor is it cheap. Look at the disaster the Russians are faced with having all those nuclear cores retired, having to be dissembled and stored forever.
And with a CGN came the added risk that its reactor would be blowed up while it fulfilled ones of its roles. That of bullet catcher for the CVs. I'd hate to be downwind of that one. Where'as a supercarrier, most of all when surrounded by its screens, is as unsinkable as man can make a ship.
So while a navy that operates a dozen 100,000 ton CVs might find it makes sense to use nuclear propulsion would it make sense to use it for two 65,000 ton ships that are probably going to operate STOVL aircraft? Probably not.
The RN is also in the middle of their Astute class SSN upgrade program. They operate four very capable, and expensive, SSBNs that carry the same Trident SLBM our own Ohio class boats carry. Their nuclear submarines are armed with Tomahawk too. Due to our "special relationship" they are the only other country we sell these systems to.
This is no "Little Navy". But "it do cost".
That is a very good point maverick. I am not arguing in one way or another. You just had the rolleyes thingy and attempted to explain why they did what they did using a very ehm different approach and you know it ;)
However i suspect it is a "different" budget. One time huge cost vs long time running cost. Getting approval now for the cheaper option is often easyer because when they already have the ships they know they will get the funding to use them.
There is a similar debate in the us over nuclear vs conventional cruisers now. The pros and cons are pretty much the same, and were they land in the end is still not settled.
-
I seem to read on defenceindustrydaily, jane's and subsim that the discussion is not really over, but i could be mistaken.
I would prolly not go nuclear with those cvs either, but as far as i have read the reason for the UK not going down that routed is cost.
-
I look at it from the stand point of having the most flexible weapons system available and the long term aspect of having it functional. I just have a hard time getting my head wrapped around two main limitations for the ship. The first being the limitation of vtol aircraft and then short legs on the CV. The CV may have large tanks but it will take a substantial amount of fuel to keep it steaming in action. I understand that dealing with the reactor later on will be an issue but that at least will be 3+ decades minimum for a capital ship like that. To me the war time function is paramount for a warship and logistics can be a stone cold beyotch when you are expressing your nations influence half way around the globe. Again to me it looks like short term considerations are going to be limiting the capabilities of the ship. Just my opinion on it.
-
WTG Brit. I heard on he Paul Harvey Show a couple of years ago that then administration was going to shuttle the navy for the part. He also mentioned that Brit's enemies were taking notice. I think this is just a great great move. It sends a message.
:salute Britain.
-
The only real disappointment with the STOVL variant of the F-35 is the reduced internal weapons load. If its going to attack with a 2,000lb standoff weapon like JSSM or JDAM it will have to load it on wingpoints. There is a 1,000 lb standoff weapon available but I dont believe the Brits have bought it, or are going to.
On the other hand even the Yank CTOL and C versions will probably very likely carry standoff weapons on the outside with the exception of very high priority targeting such as air defense targets. Even then we send in strike teams with electronic warfare airplanes along. Currently converted F-18 "Growlers" are coming on-line. I dont know what a hardpoint 2,000 lb weapon will do to a stealth F-35s LOS but it cant do nothing good. On the other hand some of the standoff weapons it will carry, such as Stormshadow, are very stealthy their ownselves. And have a respectable range.
And On the other hand STOVL aircraft are extremely versatile. The Brits are very experienced in operating them, having written the book themselves. Dont forget Yanks fly them too and they are one of only a handful of foreign airplanes we have bought during our military history. The bloody things can about operate anywheres.
And no matter how you look at it the new Lizzies and F-35Bs are going to be a revolutionary step up in capability. Their is no new limitations regarding STVOL because they already have them, and only them, and the F-35B is going to be a big step up from the AV-8s. Far more range, far bigger payload, far better LOS, far better performance all around.
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-8/48257/cartoon.jpg)
-
Notice the scottish flag, i'm some what dissapointed that no contracts were awarded to Devonport, the majority went far north to appease Gordon brown's supporters. :(
-
thats not the scottish flag,thats the signal flag for "M".
-
merit badge for John :D
-
thats not the scottish flag,thats the signal flag for "M".
Interestng. Why don't they just have a flag with an "M" on it?
:huh,
Wab
-
BAE Govan gets the lions-share of the construction work because BAE are the primary contractors. Its also has the UK's most experienced workforce in the construction of surface warships (HMS Ocean, Type 45 destoyers etc). Its debatably the only yard left in the UK capable of such a project.
Devenport and Rosyth are owned by Babcock - a subcontractor. The decision to use Rosyth for the fit-out rather than Devenport is partly based on capability, and partly an effort to spread UK military spending throughout the UK. A Newcastle yard also got a chunk of work did it not? And without this contract, Rosyth would likely be closing.
And last time I checked, Scotland is still part of the UK - why shouldn't Scottish yards get the contract to build British (not English) warships?
-
What was the reasoning for gas-turbines instead of nuclear power? I don't relly get that one. :huh
-
And last time I checked, Scotland is still part of the UK - why shouldn't Scottish yards get the contract to build British (not English) warships?
Because, last time I checked, most Scottish people have a habit of constantly whining on about the English and how they'd be better off going it alone? Despite having better standards of health-care, free university education etc etc etc? :P
Perhaps porportional representation should be used, on the basis of tax contributed and population. That would be fair. Perhaps Scotland could build the propellers under such an arrangement? :aok
-
What was the reasoning for gas-turbines instead of nuclear power? I don't relly get that one. :huh
cost
-
What was the reasoning for gas-turbines instead of nuclear power? I don't relly get that one. :huh
Money, simplicity, ease of repair and replacement. When you have a dozen supercarriers having one or two down for a nuclear fuel replenishment cycle, which I believe is at least 6 mos, isnt that big a deal. But when you have only one or two, and one is down, it can lose a war for you. Additionally nuclear reactors need a huge training and support mechanism in place for them. And is it worth it for just one or two? Yes the Brits have submarines with nuclear reactors but I'm sure they are of a different type. Gas turbines are much simpler, cost less, and are very efficient nowadays.
America has the worlds only truly "Global Navy" and nuclear is the way to go for us. We have to move huge carriers across all the worlds oceans and we often have to do it quickly. Britain, while also having global responsibilities, doesnt have the same mission for their navy.
Yes its true fueling gas turbines is expensive as well but only if you move the CV across large distances. Crews can train in home waters, or even while docked, and patrols can be done at economical speeds.
Dont forget we also have carriers that use standard propulsion in our Tawara and Wasp class Amphib assualt carriers. We have a follow on class planned and all operate the same STVOL aircraft the Brits do, AND, will fly the same F-35 variant as well. We have 13 of these LHAs and LHDs, both types being in the 40,000 ton class. One of these ships continuously sortied 20 Harrier jets during the Gulf War so they are legitimate aircraft carriers in their own right. So really America has 24 carriers with over 1/2 powered by Gas turbines. All the other CV players in the world are conventionally powered as well. It would have surprised me had the RN said they preferred nuclear power instead.
-
Perhaps porportional representation should be used, on the basis of tax contributed and population.
Well, unless you're going to build the ships in Central London, we're back to Scotland again.
Perhaps Scotland could build the propellers under such an arrangement? :aok
Yes, but you'd still have to find a Yard in England (or Wales or Northern Ireland) capable of attaching said propellers to something. :P
-
Fair point. ;)
-
Money, simplicity, ease of repair and replacement. When you have a dozen supercarriers having one or two down for a nuclear fuel replenishment cycle, which I believe is at least 6 mos, isnt that big a deal. But when you have only one or two, and one is down, it can lose a war for you. Additionally nuclear reactors need a huge training and support mechanism in place for them. And is it worth it for just one or two? Yes the Brits have submarines with nuclear reactors but I'm sure they are of a different type. Gas turbines are much simpler, cost less, and are very efficient nowadays.
America has the worlds only truly "Global Navy" and nuclear is the way to go for us. We have to move huge carriers across all the worlds oceans and we often have to do it quickly. Britain, while also having global responsibilities, doesnt have the same mission for their navy.
Yes its true fueling gas turbines is expensive as well but only if you move the CV across large distances. Crews can train in home waters, or even while docked, and patrols can be done at economical speeds.
Dont forget we also have carriers that use standard propulsion in our Tawara and Wasp class Amphib assualt carriers. We have a follow on class planned and all operate the same STVOL aircraft the Brits do, AND, will fly the same F-35 variant as well. We have 13 of these LHAs and LHDs, both types being in the 40,000 ton class. One of these ships continuously sortied 20 Harrier jets during the Gulf War so they are legitimate aircraft carriers in their own right. So really America has 24 carriers with over 1/2 powered by Gas turbines. All the other CV players in the world are conventionally powered as well. It would have surprised me had the RN said they preferred nuclear power instead.
Thanks!