Author Topic: Well raise my rent...The UK is getting back into the heavy carrier club. (Read 545 times)

LtHans · « **on:** October 13, 2001, 09:50:00 PM »

I just bought a new book today that focuses on upcoming aircraft for this next century.

The UK is VERY MUCH getting back into having heavier fleet carriers like the USN, though not quite as big or as many. The current 3 or 4 Invincible class VSTOL carriers will be scrapped or sold off (Hermes was sold to India), and replaced by two big flattops.

Some of the concept drawings for these new UK carriers are interesting to say the least. One is a tri-marine hull ship called the STAC (Stealth Trimarine Aircraft Carrier. Ir is somewhat based on the US Sea Shadow stealth ship testbed and on a current UK trimarine testbed ship. It will use a simpler launch system than US steam catapult. A magnetic railgun system (originally designed for high speed trains on land), though one oddity about it is there is no plan to stop the launch shuttle. The shuttle is the slug in the barrel that the plane is hooked to. The plan is to just fling it into the sea out the front of the ship for each catapult launch.

The elevators for it will use a system called SkyRacker. A rotating platform that spins the platform up and down a screw shaped track similar to those used in automatic car parks in use in Europe and Japan. Obviously the elevator platforms are round.

The angled deck is cranked more than current US carriers, but is wider.

I drew a quick drawing of a picture of it using MS paint.

So, I guess the RN realises that big flattops are more useful than what they have now.

The only other thing of note I want to add is a proposal by the USN to build what is bassically a floating airfield. It is not a true aircraft carrer. It is more like several barge sections or oil drilling platforms that are towed or self propelled to the shore of the enemy, and assembled. It is a hell of a lot larger than any aircraft carrier. It can even support US C-17 cargo planes.

The bad news is this thing is alot more vulnerable to attack than carriers. It doesn't move, meaning the area has to be heavily patrolled to protect it. The only good news is that since it is built in sections, one part can be hit and damaged, and replaced/sent home while the other sections are reattached without the missing part.

Really it is only useful against a second rate enemy, but those tend to be what everone thinks will be the 21st century wars anyway.

At any rate, way to go Brits. The more allied carriers the better in my book.

Hans.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

mrfish · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2001, 09:56:00 PM »

wow that's pretty cool. can't wait to see them.

LtHans · « **Reply #2 on:** October 14, 2001, 01:30:00 AM »

A few more details here. The STAC ship carries about 50 planes. Its triple hull design makes it very fast (40 knots), and also stable in heavy seas.

There is also a design for a RN carrier that is bassically a return to the WW-2 thru-deck inline carrier, though with stealth style superstructures. No angled deck.

The USN is also rethinking their carrier forces. Although the USN is still building carriers, they are the same type designed in the 60s and 70s. With new budgets and such the USN would like to cut costs, but still have carriers.

Another design is a modified Nimitz class that fills in the spaces between the bow and mid section, as well as filling in the space between the stern and mid section, creating a large oval deck instead of the slim, wide, slim deckplan that US carriers have now. The landing runway would be longer and more inline than current carriers. An elevator would be installed on the rightside of the stern

The RN is upsizing their ships, while the USN is downsizing the size/costs of their ships. Both navies will probably operate similar ships and may even cooperate and design a single class jointly.

Vulcan · « **Reply #3 on:** October 14, 2001, 05:22:00 AM »

How can a triple hull be more stable in heavy seas? Where I live the cats and tris can't go out in heavy seas, they're too unstable, whereas the monohulls are fine.

I've been out in large hi-speed cat on a heavy sea. Man it was the best amusement ride I've been on ever

Replicant · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2001, 05:40:00 AM »

It's all part of Joint Force 2000. At the moment the RAF have four Harrier GR7 squadrons (soon to be updated to GR9) and are based at RAF Cottesmore (1, 3, 4 Sqn) and RAF Wittering (20 Sqn). In 2003 the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm will relocate their Harrier FA.2 to RAF Cottesmore (800, 801 NAS) and RAF Wittering (899 NAS). The joint RAF/RN have already been operating together for some time and all UK carriers carry 7 RAF Harriers and 6 FAA Harriers. The reasoning for the joint operations is obvious and additionally in preparation for the JSF when and if it enters service in the future.

The aircraft carriers described are only one of several designs. The UK have always tried to avoid the use of a steam catapult because it uses up so much room and energy. The other ideas will continue with the use of a ski jump or the catapult system described above. The new carriers will carry up 50 aircraft and will be in excess of 300 metres long.

Regards

Nexx

LtHans · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2001, 05:40:00 AM »

I'm not the engineer. How would I know?

Seems to work though, since the Royal Navy just built a testbed ship.

Hans.

Dowding · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2001, 05:45:00 AM »

Nice idea, but I can imagine the development costs are astronomical, nevermind building and equipping the thing. The UK just can't afford huge defence projects anymore.

The recent(ish) Strategic Defence Review considered actually scrapping the existing Fleet Air Arm, based on its huge cost versus effectiveness, but that was unacceptable to the Navy.

Do you have any links so I could read up on that carrier? Cheers.

[ 10-14-2001: Message edited by: Dowding ]

JV44 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2001, 07:48:00 AM »

Hello....

This Design looks like a Klingon "Bird of pray"

Andreas (JV 44)

1776 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2001, 08:24:00 AM »

They still going to flush the poop right out into the ocean?

Hangtime · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2001, 09:34:00 AM »

There is nothing more imposing, more frightening, more convincing of American national will than the appearance of one of these off a potentates shores.

I believe we have three on station off of Pakistan right now.

GO NAVY!

Pongo · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2001, 11:11:00 AM »

Well I dont know hangtime..
Here in Victoria nothing says "Party" like one of those pulling up off the harbour.

LtHans · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2001, 08:07:00 PM »

Quote

Nice idea, but I can imagine the development costs are astronomical, nevermind building and equipping the thing. The UK just can't afford huge defence projects anymore.

Well, your right. The UK cannot build a huge fleet like the USN has.

However, as I mentioned above the UK has four 20,000 ton helicopter/jump jet carriers right now. The plan is to get rid of them and replace them with only TWO of these heavier carriers. "Heavy" is a relative term though, since these new carriers will not be the same as the huge USN carriers which top out at around 96,000 tons. These will be halfway between the small jump jet carriers and the super carriers. My guess would put them around 40,000 or 50,000 tons. The USN's smallest conventional carriers wiegh in at 78,000 tons (The USS John F Kennedy).

And development cost shouldn't be as much as you think, because from what I understand the USN, like every military in the world right now is shrinking, will probably be involved in the development too. We may go the same route and use smaller carriers too. WWIII isn't looming around the corner, but brushfire wars are. Smaller may be better. US and UK alliances are probably at an all time high right now because of September 11, and it would surprise me if we work together on our navys. In fact I would hope we would.

The crews of ships are the most expensive part, and all new ships are starting to take advantage of computers more than ever. What I have read says these new carries will have less than 1,000 men crews. I can't recall off the top of my head right now, but the prediction was only about 300 men (not counting the air wing with their men and pilots).

Thats the information I have gathered right now. Anybody know anything else?

Hans.

Daff · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2001, 08:24:00 PM »

I seem to recall that the Seaharrier will end it's service in 2015. That could also be a reason for building a bigger carrier.

Daff

Hangtime · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2001, 11:17:00 PM »

Well hell; Pongo, I had no idea Canada was ruled by potentates.

Replicant · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2001, 04:18:00 PM »

LtHans, check out Royal Navy website:-

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/670.html

BTW, it does mention CV will be around 40,000 - 50,000 tons.

Regards

Nexx