By: Anonymous
- 14th November 2006 at 01:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
IMO there were good reasons for choosing the STOVL J35 and a ski jump configuration, there were also good arguments in favour of catapults. However, if the CVF is going to be pursued in some form of co-operation with France then it'd make sense to risk share and develop common support and upgrade management for things like the AEW system (Hawkeyes I'd hope) and even the naval strike aircraft, and so it does change the argument and make fitting of catapults more attractive.
Oh, Politics is Politics............the UK will save alittle now with no catapults and spend much more down the road to add them! Does anyone here believe if the CVF's are built that they will never received some type of catapults system in the future????
By: F-18RN
- 17th November 2006 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9 after a last-minute deal was agreed over the price of the vessels between government and the industry alliance set to build the warship.
At one stage last week, it looked as though the Defence Procurement Agency’s plan to present the business case for the aircraft carrier development and construction to the IAB when it meets Nov 9 had foundered.
Now, though, sources close to the program say a series of meetings in recent days between senior officials from industry and the MoD has culminated in a compromise agreement on the price the government is willing to pay for the carriers.
At one point, Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson and the chief executives of the top companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, created to build the vessels, met in an attempt to bridge the gap between the 3.5 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) the government was willing to pay and the 3.8 billion pounds the alliance wanted to charge.
IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.
The two sides have settled on an incentive agreement which reduces the final cost of the two 65,000-metric-ton carriers to about 3.6 billion pounds, sources say.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance includes BAE Systems, Babcock International, KBR, Thales, the VT Group and the MoD.
The first of the two warships, the largest ever proposed for the Royal Navy, are expected to enter service in 2013.
The MoD was unable to respond to requests for comment late Nov. 8. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment.
By: Turbinia
- 17th November 2006 at 15:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, Politics is Politics............the UK will save alittle now with no catapults and spend much more down the road to add them! Does anyone here believe if the CVF's are built that they will never received some type of catapults system in the future????
Yep, if the decision was for a STOVL carrier then why build it 65,000T big, you could get the same STOVL capability in a much smaller hull. By deciding the design would be catapult capable if required later the design has had to be based around the parameters needed for catapult operation with all the implications for size, structural requirements, power etc., it is a common misconception that "steel is cheap" to rationalise this over engineered aspect of the chosen type, but anybody who knows anything about ship building and nav arch would dispute that. I do think there were good arguments for a STOVL design now that the F35B promises similar performance to a conventional fighter type, but when the decision was made to include future upgrade to catapults then at that point they should have just gone for the catapults in the first place, not least because it'd make the AEW/AWACS choice a lot easier, which is a vital part of the carriers capability.
By: sferrin
- 17th November 2006 at 16:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's what I thought as well, especially considering Kitty Hawk displaces 72k metric tons full load according to fas.org. Take a look at this page though,
You can't just randomly choose metric or english units as it distorts things. CVF is not going to be a Kitty Hawk sized carrier.
By: swerve
- 17th November 2006 at 17:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't just randomly choose metric or english units as it distorts things.
Not significantly, when you're using tons. A metric ton is only 1.6% less than an English ton. Of course, if you use American tons it makes a big difference. :D
By: swerve
- 17th November 2006 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't just randomly choose metric or english units as it distorts things.
Not significantly, when you're using tons. A metric ton is only 1.6% less than an English ton. Of course, if you use American tons it makes a big difference. :D
By: sferrin
- 17th November 2006 at 18:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not significantly, when you're using tons. A metric ton is only 1.6% less than an English ton. Of course, if you use American tons it makes a big difference. :D
Wasn't sure what to call it. "big ton" and "little ton" works for me :D Regardless, it looks like CVF is going to fall somewhere between a Midway (62,000 tons full load) and a Forrestal (79,000 tons full load).
By: harryRIEDL
- 17th November 2006 at 20:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
which will make it the biggest carrier after the us super carriers.
New
By: Anonymous
- 18th November 2006 at 15:56Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget the weight issue for now! What about the size of the flight deck and the number of aircraft carried................ :rolleyes: Also, wouldn't the much more modern CVF's be lighter for a given size. For example the old boilers on the Kitty Hawk have to weight much more than the modern power plants on the CVF's? Also, isn't the fuel oil on the aformentioned heavier than the kerosene on current warships? In short the CVF's could be close in physical size yet displace much less! :rolleyes:
By: sferrin
- 18th November 2006 at 18:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget the weight issue for now! What about the size of the flight deck and the number of aircraft carried................ :rolleyes: Also, wouldn't the much more modern CVF's be lighter for a given size. For example the old boilers on the Kitty Hawk have to weight much more than the modern power plants on the CVF's? Also, isn't the fuel oil on the aformentioned heavier than the kerosene on current warships? In short the CVF's could be close in physical size yet displace much less! :rolleyes:
FLY NAVY :cool:
How long and wide are the CVFs suppose to be?
Kitty Hawk and Forrestal classes are 1052 x 252
Midway was 979 x 238
Kuznetsov is 992 x 237
New
By: Anonymous
- 18th November 2006 at 18:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How long and wide are the CVFs suppose to be?
Kitty Hawk and Forrestal classes are 1052 x 252
Midway was 979 x 238
Kuznetsov is 992 x 237
Remember those are just overall length and width not the total area.......... :rolleyes:
By: sferrin
- 18th November 2006 at 19:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember those are just overall length and width not the total area.......... :rolleyes:
Yeah, no kidding. The same would apply with CVF. So what are the dimensions?
New
By: Anonymous
- 18th November 2006 at 19:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, no kidding. The same would apply with CVF. So what are the dimensions?
Good Question I wish I had the answer? That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the CVF's were between the Kitty Hawk and Midway in general dimensions..........that doesn't necessarily translate to usable desk space thought? :rolleyes:
By: sferrin
- 18th November 2006 at 20:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good Question I wish I had the answer? That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the CVF's were between the Kitty Hawk and Midway in general dimensions..........that doesn't necessarily translate to usable desk space thought? :rolleyes:
Having two islands won't help things.
New
By: Anonymous
- 18th November 2006 at 20:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having two islands won't help things.
I was thinking the same thing............ :rolleyes:
By: Super Nimrod
- 18th November 2006 at 22:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly to reduce wind turbulance across the deck by having two small islands rather than one big one. But I reckon its really so the saintly RN Matelots don't have to work in the same place as the poncy fly boys who will sit in the aft island and whom can therefore be completely ignored most of the time until something really important comes up :diablo: :D
I really do hope that someone has considered the Psychology of such an arrangement rather than just the engineering reasons.
The CVF will have a lot more exhaust and air feed trunking etc than a nuke carrier and that is usually routed up through the Islands so they tend to be slightly bigger Islands than the CVN's, hence the need to make them smaller where possible.
By: Anonymous - 14th November 2006 at 01:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh, Politics is Politics............the UK will save alittle now with no catapults and spend much more down the road to add them! Does anyone here believe if the CVF's are built that they will never received some type of catapults system in the future????
Posts: 251
By: F-18RN - 17th November 2006 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Is there any more news on this only no other website seems to be carrying this story and the meeting was to have been held on the 9th? Its now 17th.
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 17th November 2006 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, if the decision was for a STOVL carrier then why build it 65,000T big, you could get the same STOVL capability in a much smaller hull. By deciding the design would be catapult capable if required later the design has had to be based around the parameters needed for catapult operation with all the implications for size, structural requirements, power etc., it is a common misconception that "steel is cheap" to rationalise this over engineered aspect of the chosen type, but anybody who knows anything about ship building and nav arch would dispute that. I do think there were good arguments for a STOVL design now that the F35B promises similar performance to a conventional fighter type, but when the decision was made to include future upgrade to catapults then at that point they should have just gone for the catapults in the first place, not least because it'd make the AEW/AWACS choice a lot easier, which is a vital part of the carriers capability.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 17th November 2006 at 16:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You can't just randomly choose metric or english units as it distorts things. CVF is not going to be a Kitty Hawk sized carrier.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 17th November 2006 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
why not it got steadly bigger. rember it started at 40K it is now 74K thats almost twice the size. it at 74K weather you use long or short tons
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 17th November 2006 at 17:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
74k short tons does not equal 74k long tons.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 17th November 2006 at 17:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not significantly, when you're using tons. A metric ton is only 1.6% less than an English ton. Of course, if you use American tons it makes a big difference. :D
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 17th November 2006 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not significantly, when you're using tons. A metric ton is only 1.6% less than an English ton. Of course, if you use American tons it makes a big difference. :D
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 17th November 2006 at 18:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Wasn't sure what to call it. "big ton" and "little ton" works for me :D Regardless, it looks like CVF is going to fall somewhere between a Midway (62,000 tons full load) and a Forrestal (79,000 tons full load).
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 17th November 2006 at 18:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Although Wikipedia suggests that all ships are measured in Long tons and not Metric or short.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28fluid%29
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 17th November 2006 at 20:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
which will make it the biggest carrier after the us super carriers.
By: Anonymous - 18th November 2006 at 15:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Forget the weight issue for now! What about the size of the flight deck and the number of aircraft carried................ :rolleyes: Also, wouldn't the much more modern CVF's be lighter for a given size. For example the old boilers on the Kitty Hawk have to weight much more than the modern power plants on the CVF's? Also, isn't the fuel oil on the aformentioned heavier than the kerosene on current warships? In short the CVF's could be close in physical size yet displace much less! :rolleyes:
FLY NAVY :cool:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th November 2006 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How long and wide are the CVFs suppose to be?
Kitty Hawk and Forrestal classes are 1052 x 252
Midway was 979 x 238
Kuznetsov is 992 x 237
By: Anonymous - 18th November 2006 at 18:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Remember those are just overall length and width not the total area.......... :rolleyes:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th November 2006 at 19:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, no kidding. The same would apply with CVF. So what are the dimensions?
By: Anonymous - 18th November 2006 at 19:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good Question I wish I had the answer? That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the CVF's were between the Kitty Hawk and Midway in general dimensions..........that doesn't necessarily translate to usable desk space thought? :rolleyes:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th November 2006 at 20:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Having two islands won't help things.
By: Anonymous - 18th November 2006 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was thinking the same thing............ :rolleyes:
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th November 2006 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Any idea why they went with two? Two islands and two catapults on a ~70,000 ton ship just doesn't seem to make any sense at all.
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 18th November 2006 at 22:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Supposedly to reduce wind turbulance across the deck by having two small islands rather than one big one. But I reckon its really so the saintly RN Matelots don't have to work in the same place as the poncy fly boys who will sit in the aft island and whom can therefore be completely ignored most of the time until something really important comes up :diablo: :D
I really do hope that someone has considered the Psychology of such an arrangement rather than just the engineering reasons.
The CVF will have a lot more exhaust and air feed trunking etc than a nuke carrier and that is usually routed up through the Islands so they tend to be slightly bigger Islands than the CVN's, hence the need to make them smaller where possible.